Statement:
If India wins the match, a public holiday will be declared.
Conclusions:
I. India won the match, so a public holiday was declared.
II. A public holiday was declared, so India must have won the match.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow from the given rule?
Explanation:
The statement represents 'If A then B' (A implies B). Therefore, if A happens, B definitely happens (Conclusion I). However, B could happen for other reasons (e.g., a festival), so B does not necessarily imply A (Conclusion II is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent).
Statement: By 2005 to achieve 70% literacy, a new scheme has been started on 2/5/2001.
Conclusions:
I. On 2/5/2001 literacy is less than 70%.
II. This new scheme would be completed by 2005.
Explanation:
Neither conclusion follows. The statement sets a target to achieve 70% literacy by 2005, but the current literacy rate is not explicitly stated (it could already be 70% or higher, aiming to maintain). Conclusion II is not stated; the scheme started on that date, but its completion date is not mentioned.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!