Question Description
Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.Often, crimes are characterised as either malum in se — inherently evil — or malum prohibitum — criminal because they are declared as offences by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. From the information given above, it can be validly concluded:a)Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.b)Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.c)Some crimes characterised as malum in se are not inherently evil.d)Some crimes characterised as malum prohibitum are not declared by a legislature to be an offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.