# Statement and Conclusions Questions

A) Only A follows | B) Only B follows |

C) Both (A) and (B) follows | D) Neither (A) nor (B) follows |

A) If only conclusion I follows | B) If only conclusion II follows |

C) If neither I nor II follows | D) If both I and II follow |

Explanation:

Fall of demand of gold is due to rising prices. Hence, I can be concluded. II cannot be concluded from the given statement.

A) Only A is sufficient | B) Only B is sufficient |

C) Both (A) and (B) are sufficient | D) None |

Explanation:

From statement A, we know that Pipe A can fill the tank in 40 hours. However, this information is not sufficient as we do not have the data for Pipe B. Hence, statement A alone cannot answer the given question.

From statement B, we know that Pipe B is one third as efficient as pipe A. However, we do not know the rate at which Pipe A fills the tank. Hence, we will not be able to find the rate at which Pipe B fills the cistern. Therefore, statement B alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

Now, if we combine the two statements, we know that Pipe A take 40 hours to fill the cistern.

Pipe B takes 120 hours to fill the cistern.

If they worked alternately, then either Pipe A could have started the cycle or Pipe B could have started the cycle.

If Pipe A started the sequence of filling alternately, then at the end of two hours, the two pipes together would have filled **1/40 + 1/120 = 1/30** th of the tank in an hour. Or the cistern will fill in 30 hours.

If Pipe B started the sequence, then at the end of 2 hours, the two pipes together would have filled **1/120 + 1/40 = 1/30** th of the tank in an hour. Or the cistern will fill in 30 hours.

As the answer obtained irrespective of which pipe started the sequence is the same, the correct answer is (3) - i.e., both the statement are sufficient to answer the question.

A) If only conclusion I follows | B) If only conclusion II follows |

C) If neither I nor II follows | D) If both I and II follow |

Explanation:

I does not follow because it considers the qualities expressed in the statement sufficient for the eligibility of a job. II follows obviously.

A) If only conclusion I follows | B) If only conclusion II follows |

C) If neither I nor II follows | D) If both I and II follow |

Explanation:

I is not hinted at. It is an invention of the concluder's mind. II follows because if "the whole purpose of something is defeated", it loses its meaning.

A) Only a follows | B) Both a & b follows |

C) Only b follows | D) Neither a nor b follows |

Explanation:

The statement mentions that chances of heart ailments are greatly reduced by a regular half-hour exercise. So, a follows. However, it talks of only reducing the probability which does not mean that persons involved in sedentary jobs shall definitely suffer from heart ailments. So, b does not follow.

Hence, concusion a only follows the given statement.

A) If only conclusion I follows | B) If only conclusion II follows |

C) If neither I nor II follows | D) If both I and II follow |

Explanation:

The relation of forest to population can't be derived from the statement. Hence I does not follow. From the second sentence and from the tone of the statement II can be derived. Hence follows.

A) Neither a nor b is sufficient | B) Either a or b is sufficient |

C) Both a & b are sufficient | D) a alone is sufficient while b alone is not sufficient |

Explanation:

From a, we conclude that Vinitha is the wife of Ragini's mother's only son i.e. Ragini's brother. Thus, Vinitha is Ragini's sister-in-law.

From b, we conclude that Vinitha is the cousin of Ragini's husband, which implies that Vinitha is Ragini's sister-in-law.