Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

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 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.

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 ".

No, @Pan.

The word "can" refers to ability. Meaning if they have clues, they "can" share it and if they don't, they "can't". If the sentence read, "The domestic servant, watchman and the liftman "will" give a clue about the suspected murder", then it "can" be argued that the assumption was erroneous.

Also, the word "can" has a somewhat different, looser meaning in international English in the commonwealth, it seems to me. It seems to me I have heard it used that way before, to mean "might" or "might could". Not sure if it comes from England or India or what (I was in Botswana).

As Domestic servant, watchman can give a clue like who entered the bldg or house etc around that time so 1 is implicit & as it is not necessary that known people are always directly or indirectly involved as there may be other factors to like robbery gone wrong etc.

Pan is correct. It is possible that none of them could have been able to give a clue. This needs to be fixed.

II may be true in real life, but it is not implicit in the statement. The statement only mentioned the figures in I.

The correct answer should be neither.

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.

Assumption II should be the correct answer. The use of the word "interrogation" implies that the police are questioning with a motive (usually to induce a confession). Had the word "questioned" been used, assumption I would have been the most logical answer.

I think statement 2 must be correct as well since the police generally interrogate these people assuming they might be an accomplice in the happening of the murder or the real murderers. I mean it is a general preview ain't it?