Question

​Directions: One statement is given followed by two conclusions, I and II. You have to consider the statement to be true, even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You are to decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn from the given statement.

Statement:

Shimla is less polluted than New Delhi.

Conclusions: 

I. A city which has less pollution is a better place to live in.

II. Shimla is the least polluted out of Bombay, Shimla, and New Delhi.​

• A. Only Conclusion I follows.
• B. Only Conclusion II follows.
• C. Both the Conclusions I and II follows.
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Answer 1

Answer:

D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Solution: Option D is the correct answer. The statement given in the question states only one fact i.e. New Delhi is more polluted than Shimla. It does not give a comparative study or any other statistic on which one can reason the quality of life in both these places. Hence, conclusion I does not follow. The statement only mentions the comparison between New Delhi and Shimla. Bombay is not mentioned in the statement given in the questions and therefore, drawing conclusions upon a third city is beyond the scope of this question. Hence, conclusion II does not follow. So, neither conclusion I nor II follows here.