Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

D will be the right answer because the second statement is explicit its correct, but the first one is also explicit because

1) How will the railway department get to know whether a person is needy or not?
2) In the question needy people is not mentioned, so you can't go against the statement.
3) Why would needy people need to go on a vacation on a hill station when he is needy? Please use common sense.

So, both will be Explicit and the answer would be D.

The answer should be E.

The statement clearly mentions that the concession was provided only for the journey to hill stations. Anyways the people will be visiting the hill stations with or without the concession. The needy people would want the concession on emergency journeys rather on fun filled hill station journeys.

Statement 1: It does not make any remarks that needy people should need the concession.
Statement 2: It also does not make any comments to discourage people from refraining from travelling to hill stations.

Neither 1 or 2 is implicit. Because in the first statement the only word is used and even if fare concessions are given what about the stay, they need to spend and moreover, needy people don't go for vacations and in the second statement, railways have no right to encourage or discourage people for vacations this is out of context statement.

I hope my thought process is correct.

Anyone can explain, what is the logic to understand the correct answer in "Statement and Assumption"? Please explain me step wise.

Both I and II are implicit should be the answer as Railway is not there for any kind of welfaring through their Rail services.

They may provide concession but not to the needy people. They can provide this when there is less demand for the hill stations and the Railway is in a huge loss in those routes.

@Ira, from the statement we can safely assume that initially the concession was provided because it was felt that visitors to hill station needed it. Later when they realized otherwise, they stopped it. It leads to an assumption that railways should and is indeed intent on providing concessions to needy.

According to Alfred Marshall's Law of Demand,

Higher the income of an individual, less elastic is her/his demand. Thus income varies inversely with elasticity of demand. This law has been universally accepted. Of course, the interdependence of other variables is neglected in this law, but it generally holds true.

Therefore, assumption-2 definitely does not hold true, since withdrawing concessions will not affect the spending of people visiting the hill station (because the statement also implies that those who can afford to go on a hill station are NOT needy).

As a result, it does not, not encourage people to spend their holidays on hill stations since it does not discourage their spending.

According to me, assumption-2 is also not valid. It implies that people who can afford to go there in the first place are not needy. It further implies that concession should not be given AT ALL to people who can go to hill stations.

This assumption does not differentiate between needy people and people who are not needy as regards to the concessions.

Therefore, Option D is correct according to me.

How we know which person is needy and who is not ?

Concession canceled means they are not supporting the people in holidays.

Had it been that the Railways should encourage people to spend their holidays at hill stations they would have given concessions to all. It clashes with the statement which says that concessions should not be given to all but only to the needy persons. At first sight it appears to be a valid assumption.

But is this a necessary one. NO. This is not.