Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion
Discussion Forum : Statement and Assumption - Section 4 (Q.No. 9)
Directions to Solve
In each question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement.
Give answer
- (A) If only assumption I is implicit
- (B) If only assumption II is implicit
- (C) If either I or II is implicit
- (D) If neither I nor II is implicit
- (E) If both I and II are implicit.
9.
Statement: To investigate the murder of the lone resident of a flat, the police interrogated the domestic servant, the watchman of the multi-storeyed buildings and the liftman.
Assumptions:
- The domestic servant, watchman and the liftman can give a clue about the suspected murder.
- Generally in such cases the persons known to the resident are directly or indirectly involved in the murder.
Answer: Option
Explanation:
Clearly, in such cases, the police interrogates the domestic servant, watchman and liftman to work out the sequence of events just before the murder by tracing the persons who had come to meet the victim. So, I is implicit However, it is erroneous to assume that persons known to the victim are generally involved in the murder. So, II is not implicit.
Discussion:
25 comments Page 1 of 3.
Abhimanyu said:
1 decade ago
Second statement is also implicit as generally the person is known to the resident as no person with target of robbery will kill the resident.
Anvisha said:
1 decade ago
I agree with abhimanyu.
Prem said:
1 decade ago
I also agree with Abhimanyu.
I mean why would one kill anybody even without knowing him, people kill anybody they know, Everybody knows even his enemy they are willing to kill, In most of the cases people knew either the person who killed them or the person who payed to kill them, sometimes they knew to both.
You assume yourself on the place of murderer, would you kill anybody random you don't know or would you like to kill somebody who is one of your enemies.
I mean why would one kill anybody even without knowing him, people kill anybody they know, Everybody knows even his enemy they are willing to kill, In most of the cases people knew either the person who killed them or the person who payed to kill them, sometimes they knew to both.
You assume yourself on the place of murderer, would you kill anybody random you don't know or would you like to kill somebody who is one of your enemies.
Pan said:
1 decade ago
The domestic servant, watchman and the lift-man can give a clue about the suspected murder.
They can give a clue only if the have a clue. If they do not have a clue they cannot give one. The answer that actually follows is this.
"The domestic servant, watchman and the lift-man MIGHT give a clue about the suspected murder ".
They can give a clue only if the have a clue. If they do not have a clue they cannot give one. The answer that actually follows is this.
"The domestic servant, watchman and the lift-man MIGHT give a clue about the suspected murder ".
Kolliparajayaram said:
1 decade ago
Yes assumption II is implicit a police first suspects the neighbors because they are the one who are very close and observing the one who was murdered.
Eklavya Mayank said:
1 decade ago
If A person is living alone than only these three persons are the prime suspects as they are totally aware of his routine making it easy for them to eliminate the target.
Gabe said:
1 decade ago
I agree with @Pan - just because they may know what happened before the murder, it is "erroneous" to assume that they can, without a doubt, give a clue.
Steve said:
1 decade ago
I agree with @Pan. They need to change the wording from can to may.
LLumi said:
1 decade ago
I think II is also implicit. The victim was a LONE resident. Who would they suspect first but be the closest to her?
"Generally in SUCH cases the persons known to the resident are directly or indirectly involved in the murder. " It did not say ALL cases anyway.
"Generally in SUCH cases the persons known to the resident are directly or indirectly involved in the murder. " It did not say ALL cases anyway.
Everett said:
1 decade ago
Assumption II can go either way. It all depends on your definition of "involved.".
I consider being an eye witness to be "indirectly involved" in a murder. You didn't help the murder take place, but you were part of the event, indirectly. The problem is, where does the line between being "indirectly involved" and "not involved" end? If you want to be really technical about it, even manufacturing the weapon that resulted in the person's murder could be considered involved. It all depends on your definition of "involved. ".
Also, this isn't every case, just a generalization. It doesn't have to be correct, which is why it's an assumption.
I consider being an eye witness to be "indirectly involved" in a murder. You didn't help the murder take place, but you were part of the event, indirectly. The problem is, where does the line between being "indirectly involved" and "not involved" end? If you want to be really technical about it, even manufacturing the weapon that resulted in the person's murder could be considered involved. It all depends on your definition of "involved. ".
Also, this isn't every case, just a generalization. It doesn't have to be correct, which is why it's an assumption.
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers