# Logical Reasoning - Statement and Conclusion - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Statement and Conclusion - Section 1 (Q.No. 26)
Directions to Solve

In each question below is given a statement followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then consider the two conclusions together and decide which of them logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the information given in the statement.

• (A) If only conclusion I follows
• (B) If only conclusion II follows
• (C) If either I or II follows
• (D) If neither I nor II follows and
• (E) If both I and II follow.

26.

Statements: The serious accident in which a person was run down by a car yesterday had again focused attention on the most unsatisfactory state of roads.

Conclusions:

1. The accident that occurred was fatal.
2. Several accidents have so far taken place because of unsatisfactory state of roads.
Only conclusion I follows
Only conclusion II follows
Either I or II follows
Neither I nor II follows
Both I and II follow
Explanation:
Since the accident has caused concern, it must be fatal. So, I follows. The use of the word 'again' in the statement justifies the fact mentioned in II. So, II also follows.
Discussion:
8 comments Page 1 of 1.

Anushka said:   5 years ago
Losing a leg in an accident is also severe & will cause concern. Therefore it does not necessarily has to be fatal. With this amout of information we cannot be certain that the accident was fatal. So the answer could be B.
(2)

Jasmine said:   5 years ago
Fatal means "person is dead", but statement just says run down by car. It does not point out whether person was dead. There is huge difference. So, only B should be the answer.
(1)

Varun Km said:   10 years ago
When a car runs over a person it does not necessarily mean that the person who was ran over is Dead, a person can also be paralyzed but not dead, there fore the question does not state that the accident was fatal! and paralyzes is also very serious to that person. An assumption can not be made as the person who was run over is dead. Hence assumption A is vague and cannot be considered, logically the right answer here is B!

Who wrote this question? They evidently don't understand how logic works. Unless your name is Sherlock Holmes, you cannot "deduce" something from zero factual evidence and expect to be correct.

It's obvious that all accidents cause concern, fatal or not. I doesn't follow because the state of the person hit by the car was never disclosed thus we cannot deduce the fatality the person suffered. What if she or he just suffered a broken wrist or dislocated shoulder? That is not as a fatal as being subjected to death on impact, isn't it? E is wrong I cannot be deduced from the statements.