Statement: The Bank of England's move to auction 25 metric tons of gold drew plenty of bidders looking for a bargain, but was criticized by major gold producers worldwide.
Conclusions:
I. The Bank of England should not auction gold which it possesses to keep steady international prices of gold.
II. Bidders should quote higher gold prices to retain present value of gold in the international markets.
Explanation:
Neither conclusion follows. The statement merely reports the auction and the criticism; it does not logically lead to a 'should' statement about whether the auction should happen (I). Similarly, advice to bidders (II) is not a logical conclusion from the given information.
Statement:
The old order changed yielding place to new.
Conclusions:
I. Change is the law of nature.
II. Discard old ideas because they are old.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
The statement reflects a philosophical truth that old things are eventually replaced by new things, reflecting the law of continuous change (I). However, it does not prescribe actively discarding ideas *just* because they are old (II).
Statement: On metro section of railways, the motormen are frequently required to do overtime during May and June though all vacancies are completely filled as per requirement of this section.
Conclusions:
I. Many motormen take leave of shorter or longer duration during this period.
II. Some motormen desire to earn overtime whenever possible.
Explanation:
Neither conclusion follows. Overtime could be due to increased workload, not necessarily leave. The statement does not discuss motormen's desire to earn overtime.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!