Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: In the following questions, a sta...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.
Statement:
Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.
Conclusions:
I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.
II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.

a)
if conclusion I follows;
b)
if conclusion II follows;
c)
if both I and II follow;
d)
if either I or II follows; and
e)
if neither I nor II follows.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Paragraph Based Questions (Easy)

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followe...

Both conclusions are correct. Killing continues, means the first conclusion is valid. Killing continues while the government says that terrorists are in check, means that the second is valid.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followe...

Statement and Conclusions:

Statement: Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.
Conclusions:
I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.
II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.

Explanation:

The statement talks about the government's claim that terrorism is under check, but killing continues, which indicates that the claim is not true. Based on this statement, we can draw the following conclusions:

Conclusion I: The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government
This conclusion can be drawn as the statement suggests that terrorism is still ongoing, indicating that the terrorists are not cooperating with the government to bring an end to it.

Conclusion II: The government has been constantly telling a lie
This conclusion can also be drawn as the statement indicates that the government's claim that terrorism is under check is false, which implies that the government has been lying to the people.

Therefore, both conclusions I and II can be drawn from the given statement. Hence, the correct answer is option C, i.e., both I and II follow.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement: Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions: I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.

View answer

Passage:In the second week of August 1998, just a few days after the incidents of bombing the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, a highpowered, brain-storming session was held near Washington D.C., to discuss various aspects of terrorism. The meeting was attended by ten of America‘s leading experts in various fields such as germ and chemical warfare, public health, disease control and also by the doctors and the law- enforcing officers. Being asked to describe the horror of possible bio-attack, one of the experts narrated the following gloomy scenario. A culprit in a crowded business centre or in a busy shopping mall of a town empties a test tube containing some fluid, which in turn creates an unseen cloud of germ of a dreaded disease like anthrax capable of inflicting a horrible death within5 days on any one who inhales it. At first500,or so victims feel that they have mild influenza which may recede after a day or two. Then the symptoms return again and their lungs start filling with fluid. They rush to local hospitals for treatment, but the panic-stricken people may find that the medicare services run quickly out of drugs due to excessive demand. But no one would be able to realize that a terrorist attack has occurred. One cannot deny the possibility that the germ involved would be of contagious variety capable of causing an epidemic. The meeting concluded that such attacks, apart from causing immediate human tragedy, would have dire long-term effects on the political and social fabric of a country by way of ending people‘s trust on the competence of thegovernment. The experts also said that the bombs used in Kenya and Tanzania were of the old-fashion variety and involved quantities of high explosives, but new terrorism will prove to be more deadly and probably more elusive than hijacking an aeroplane or a gelignite of previous decades. According to Bruce Hoffman, an American specialist on political violence, old terrorism generally had a specific manifesto-to overthrow a colonial power or the capitalist system and so on. These terrorists were not shy about planting a bomb or hijacking an aircraft and they set some limit to their brutality. Killing so many innocent people might turn their natural supporters off. Political terrorists want a lot of people watching but not a lot of people dead. Old terrorism sought to change the world while the new sort is often practised by those who believe that the world has gone beyond redemption, he added. Hoffman says, New terrorism has no long- term agenda but is ruthless in its shortterm intentions. It is often just a cacophonous cry of protest or an outburst of religious intolerance or a protest against the West in general and the US in particular. Its perpetrators may be religious fanatics or diehard opponent of a government and see no reason to show restraint. They are simply intent on inflicting the maximum amount of pain on the victim.Directions: choose the word which is most opposite in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passageQ.Intolerance

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.In the second week of August 1998, just a few days after the incidents of bombing the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, a high-powered, brain-storming session was held near Washington D.C. to discuss various aspects of terrorism. The meeting was attended by ten of America’s leading experts in various fields such as germ and chemical warfare, public health, disease control and also by the doctors and the law-enforcing officers. Being asked to describe the horror of possible bio-attack, one of the experts narrated the following gloomy scenario.A culprit in a crowded business centre or in a busy shopping mall of a town empties a test tube containing some fluid, which in turn creates an unseen cloud of germ of a dreaded disease like anthrax capable of inflicting a horrible death within 5 days on any one who inhales it. At first 500 or so victims feel that they have mild influenza which may recede after a day or two. Then the symptoms return again and their lungs start filling with fluid. They rush to local hospitals for treatment, but the panic-stricken people may find that the medicare services run quickly out of drugs due to excessive demand. But no one would be able to realise that a terrorist attack has occurred. One cannot deny the possibility that the germ involved would be of contagious variety capable of causing an epidemic. The meeting concluded that such attacks, apart from causing immediate human tragedy, would have dire long-term effects on the political and social fabric of a country by way of ending people’s trust on the competence of the government.The experts also said that the bombs used in Kenya and Tanzania were of the old-fashioned variety and involved quantities of high explosives, but new terrorism will prove to be more deadly and probably more elusive than hijacking an aeroplane or a gelignite of previous decades. According to Bruce Hoffman, an American specialist on political violence, old terrorism generally had a specific manifesto - to overthrow a colonial power or the capitalist system and so on. These terrorists were not shy about planting a bomb or hijacking an aircraft and they set some limit to their brutality. Killing so many innocent people might turn their natural supporters off. Political terrorists want a lot of people watching but not a lot of people dead. “Old terrorism sought to change the world while the new sort is often practised by those who believe that the world has gone beyond redemption”, he added.Hoffman says, “New terrorism has no long-term agenda but is ruthless sin its short-term intentions. It is often just a cacophonous cry of protest or an outburst of religious intolerance or a protest against the West in general and the US in particular. Its perpetrators may be religious fanatics or diehard opponents of a government and see no reason to show restraint. They are simply intent on inflicting the maximum amount of pain on the victim.”Q. In what way would the new terrorism be different from that of the earlier years?(

View answer

While passing the amendment to the UAPA, the Central Govt. pointed out in parliament, many countries across the world have similar legislations to deal with lone-wolf terrorist acts. These are, specifically, the ambiguity about which authority in the government decides whom to label a terrorist and on what basis, how this information gets communicated to the labeled individual and the law’s silence about the consequence of being labelled a terrorist. It seems that future conversations around the “terrorist” label will hinge solely upon the information that the government hands out at its convenience—treating Indians not as citizens of a democracy, but as if they are subjects of a police state.Firstly, the law is amorphous in setting the terms for the central government to confer, or withdraw, the “terrorist” label. The choice to keep the labelling process faceless and shapeless in the statute erodes the accountability of those wielding power, and underscores the imbalance of power between state and subject.The second overlooked concern about the amendment is that while it conceals details about the labelling process, it prescribes a public announcement to declare a person as a terrorist. It does not require the government to send a letter to the person that it wants to brand a terrorist. Instead, it directs the government to issue a notification in the Gazette of India. The media will now have legal basis to call someone a terrorist even though that person might not be convicted of a single crime. The burden of proof would lie entirely on the person whom the government wants to brand a terrorist because the law does not have a procedure for them to challenge the government’s claim before the announcement is made in the Gazette.The third worrying characteristic about the amendment makes this obvious—nowhere does it describe what follows once an individual is labelled a terrorist.By keeping the consequences of employing the terrorist label undefined, the law can allow the imagination of investigative agencies to run riot, and confer legal sanction to their prejudices.By making crucial information about the law opaque and difficult to access, the government’s legislative techniques are not of a democratic state answerable to citizens, but of a colonial sovereign ruling over its subjects.Q.Karan is a student of NLU. A protest against government law was taking place outside his campus. He went and observed the protest. The protestors raised slogans against the government law and then left peacefully after lighting candles. A local news anchor named Sudhir ran a story on media channel in which he claimed Karan to be a terrorist. Karan filed a suit against Sudhir and his channel, will his suit be allowed?

View answer

Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MIS

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: In the following questions, a statement or two are followed by two conclusions.Statement:Inspite of the claim of the government that terrorism is under check, killing continues.Conclusions:I. The terrorists have not come to an understanding with the government.II. The government has been constantly telling a lie.a)if conclusion I follows;b)if conclusion II follows;c)if both I and II follow;d)if either I or II follows; ande)if neither I nor II follows.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam