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 2 of 3.
Basssultan said:
9 years ago
Generally, means that it is true for all cases. A general statement is true for all elements of a set. Assumption 2 is far from correct.
Rajnish said:
9 years ago
The correct answer is assumption 1 and assumption 2 both are correct.
Most of the murdered used to be planned by these persons only because they know every detail of their boss life.
Most of the murdered used to be planned by these persons only because they know every detail of their boss life.
David said:
1 decade ago
The word "interviewed", would have been more appropriate to use than the word "interrogate".
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.
Charles said:
1 decade ago
I agree with @Pan, the I. Statement should say that the domestic servant, watchman and the lift man (Might) give a clue about the suspected murder. The meaning of might and can is very definite, therefore arousing Confusion.
Eli said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steve said:
1 decade ago
I agree with @Pan. They need to change the wording from can to may.
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.
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers