All questions of Deriving Conclusion from Passages for CSEET Exam

Understanding the Statement
The statement highlights a serious accident where a person was run down by a car, leading to concerns about the poor condition of the roads.
Analyzing the Conclusions
1. Conclusion I: The accident that occurred was fatal.
- The term "serious accident" typically implies that there could be severe consequences, including fatalities. While it is not explicitly stated that the person died, the nature of the accident suggests a high possibility of fatality. Thus, this conclusion is likely to follow from the context of the statement.
2. Conclusion II: Several accidents have so far taken place because of the unsatisfactory state of roads.
- The statement mentions that the accident has "focused attention" on the unsatisfactory state of the roads, implying that this issue is not new and has likely led to multiple incidents in the past. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there have been several accidents attributable to the poor road conditions.
Logical Evaluation
- Both conclusions I and II can be inferred from the statement:
- I is supported by the serious nature of the accident.
- II is reinforced by the implication that the unsatisfactory condition of the roads has been a recurring problem.
Conclusion
Hence, both conclusions logically follow from the statement, making the correct answer option 'D': Both I and II follow.

Explanation:

Statement Analysis:
- Applications not meeting eligibility criteria or submitted after the last date will be rejected.
- Rejected applications will not be called for the written test.

Conclusion Analysis:
- Conclusion I: Those called for the written test fulfill eligibility criteria and submitted applications before the last date logically follows from the statement. As per the statement, only eligible applicants who submitted their applications on time will be called for the written test.
- Conclusion II: The statement does not explicitly mention the timing of the written test in relation to the scrutiny of applications. Therefore, it cannot be definitively concluded that the written test will only be held after the scrutiny of applications.

Final Verdict:
Both conclusions I and II can logically follow from the given statement. Conclusion I is directly supported by the statement, while Conclusion II is a possibility based on the information provided. Hence, the correct answer is option D - Both I and II follow.

Understanding the Statement
The statement provides information about the availability of hospital beds in a specific state compared to the national norm.
- National Norm: 100 beds per thousand populations
- State Availability: 150 beds per thousand populations
This indicates that the state exceeds the national average in terms of hospital bed availability.
Analyzing the Conclusions
Now, let's evaluate the conclusions based on the given statement:
Conclusion I: Our national norm is appropriate.
- This conclusion cannot be definitively drawn from the statement. Just because the state has more beds than the national norm does not imply that the norm itself is appropriate. The national norm could be underestimated or overestimated, and without additional data or context, we cannot conclude its appropriateness.
Conclusion II: The state's health system is taking adequate care in this regard.
- This conclusion logically follows from the statement. Since the state has 150 beds per thousand populations, which is significantly higher than the national norm of 100 beds, it suggests that the state is indeed providing more than adequate healthcare infrastructure in terms of bed availability.
Final Decision
Given the analysis:
- Conclusion I does not logically follow from the statement.
- Conclusion II logically follows and indicates that the state's health system is effectively addressing the need for hospital beds.
Thus, the correct answer is Only conclusion II follows (option 'B').

Explanation:

Given statements:
- Most dresses in that shop are expensive.

Conclusion:
- There are cheap dresses also in that shop.

Explanation:
- The statement specifies that most dresses in the shop are expensive, which implies that there are also some dresses in the shop that are not expensive.
- Since the statement does not say that all dresses in the shop are expensive, it is logical to conclude that there are cheap dresses available in the shop as well.
- Hence, the conclusion that there are cheap dresses also in that shop logically follows from the given statement.

Explanation:

Given Statements:
- All beggars are poor.

Conclusions:
a) If A is a beggar, then A is not rich.
- This conclusion logically follows from the given statement. If all beggars are poor, then it can be inferred that they are not rich.
b) If A is not rich, then A is not a beggar.
- This conclusion does not logically follow from the given statement. It is possible for someone to be poor but not necessarily a beggar.
c) All those who are poor are beggars.
- This conclusion does not logically follow from the given statement. It is mentioned that all beggars are poor, but it does not imply that all poor people are beggars.
d) If A is rich, then A is not a beggar.
- This conclusion logically follows from the given statement. Since all beggars are poor, if someone is rich, they cannot be a beggar based on the initial statement.
Therefore, the correct conclusion that logically follows from the given statement is option 'D' - If A is rich, then A is not a beggar.

Statement: Soldiers serve their country.

Conclusions:
a) Men generally serve their country.
b) Those who serve their country are soldiers.
c) Some men who are soldiers serve their country.
d) Women do not serve their country because they are not soldiers.

Explanation:

To determine the conclusion that logically follows from the given statement, we need to analyze each conclusion based on its logical relationship with the statement.

Conclusion a) Men generally serve their country:
This conclusion cannot be logically inferred from the given statement. The statement only mentions soldiers serving their country and does not provide any information about men in general. Therefore, this conclusion is not valid.

Conclusion b) Those who serve their country are soldiers:
This conclusion can be logically inferred from the given statement. The statement explicitly states that soldiers serve their country. Therefore, it can be concluded that those who serve their country are soldiers. This conclusion is valid.

Conclusion c) Some men who are soldiers serve their country:
This conclusion can also be logically inferred from the given statement. Since soldiers serve their country and soldiers can be men, it can be concluded that some men who are soldiers serve their country. This conclusion is valid.

Conclusion d) Women do not serve their country because they are not soldiers:
This conclusion cannot be logically inferred from the given statement. The statement does not provide any information about women or their ability to serve their country. Therefore, this conclusion is not valid.

Conclusion:
Based on the logical analysis of each conclusion, it can be concluded that only conclusions b) and c) logically follow from the given statement.

Given Statements:
- Many business offices are located in buildings having two to eight floors.
- If a building has more than three floors, it has a lift.

Conclusion:
c) Seventh floors have lifts.

Explanation:
To determine which conclusion logically follows from the given statements, we need to analyze the information provided.

Key Points:
- Business offices are located in buildings with 2 to 8 floors.
- Buildings with more than 3 floors have lifts.

Analysis:
- Since many business offices are located in buildings with 2 to 8 floors, it implies that buildings with 2 to 8 floors are suitable for housing business offices.
- The statement "If a building has more than 3 floors, it has a lift" implies that all buildings with more than 3 floors have lifts, but it doesn't provide any information about the number of floors the lifts serve.

Explanation for Conclusion C:
- The given statements do not provide any direct information about whether the seventh floor has a lift or not.
- Therefore, conclusion c) "Seventh floors have lifts" cannot be logically derived from the given statements.

Other Conclusions:
a) All floors may be reached by lifts.
- This conclusion cannot be derived from the given statements as it does not provide any information about whether all floors have lifts or not.

b) Only floors above the third floor have lifts.
- This conclusion cannot be derived from the given statements as it only states that buildings with more than 3 floors have lifts, but it doesn't specify the floors on which the lifts are present.

d) Second floors do not have lifts.
- This conclusion can be logically derived from the given statements.
- Since the statement "If a building has more than 3 floors, it has a lift" is true, it implies that buildings with 2 or 3 floors do not have lifts.
- Therefore, conclusion d) "Second floors do not have lifts" can be logically derived from the given statements.

Hence, the correct answer is option 'D' - Second floors do not have lifts.

Understanding the Conclusion
The statement indicates that the government plans to introduce a bill allowing the establishment of private universities under strict guidelines. Among the given conclusions, option 'B' logically follows. Here’s why:
Analyzing the Conclusions
- Conclusion A: "We have some private universities in our country even now."
- This statement is factual but does not directly relate to the government’s upcoming bill. It doesn't imply a necessity for new legislation.
- Conclusion B: "The demand for more universities is being stepped up."
- This conclusion logically follows from the government's action of introducing a bill. It suggests that there is a recognized need for more educational institutions, likely prompting the government to act. The strict directions imply that there is a need to regulate the establishment of these universities due to rising demands.
- Conclusion C: "Such directions can also be issued without informing the Parliament."
- This statement is speculative and does not necessarily relate to the statement. It raises a question about governmental procedures without directly supporting the need for the bill.
- Conclusion D: "The government gives directions to establish anything in the private sector."
- While this may be true, it is too broad and does not directly relate to the specific bill about private universities.
Conclusion
The most logical conclusion is B, as it connects the government’s initiative to the broader context of increasing educational demand, making it a relevant and necessary step.

Understanding the Statements
In the given scenario, we have the following premises:
- All students in my class are bright.
- Manish is not bright.
This establishes a clear relationship between being a student in the class and being bright.
Analyzing the Conclusions
Now, let's evaluate the conclusions one by one:
- a) Some students are not bright.
- This directly contradicts the first statement. Since all students in the class are bright, this conclusion does not logically follow.
- b) Manish must work hard.
- There is no information provided that connects Manish's brightness to the need for hard work. This conclusion is not supported by the statements.
- c) Non-bright ones are not students.
- While this is true in the context of the class, it does not directly follow from the statements provided. It’s an interpretation rather than a logical conclusion.
- d) Manish is not a student of my class.
- This conclusion logically follows from the given statements. Since all students in the class are bright and Manish is not bright, it must be true that Manish cannot be a student in that class.
Conclusion
Given the analysis, option d is the only conclusion that directly follows from the statements:
- Manish's lack of brightness eliminates him from being a student in the class, confirming that he is not a student there.
In summary, the correct answer is option D because it adheres directly to the logical structure established by the premises.