Logical Reasoning - Statement and Conclusion - Discussion

The statement says, "All those political prisoners were released".
It doesn't say "All political prisoners were released. ".
It only refers to the subset of political prisoners who were in jail for reasons other than political dharnas.
Why This Changes the Analysis:

Conclusion I: No political prisoner has committed murder.

Revised Logic: We know that the subset of political prisoners released on bail were not involved in murders. But we don't know about the political prisoners who were jailed for political dharnas or if they were involved in murders.

Revised Validity: Conclusion I is invalid. We can't generalize about all political prisoners.

Conclusion II: Some politicians were not arrested.

Logic: As we discussed before, this conclusion is still invalid. The statements focus on those already arrested, not those who were not.

Revised Conclusion:.

Neither conclusion I nor II can be validly drawn from the given statements.

@ Rameshwar

Political prisoners have committed dharnas as well as some other crimes
but those who committed political dharnas were not granted bail.

This can be implied from the statement first part and if this was only given then we could have mark conclusion 1 ie A follows. But the second statement "Bail was not granted to persons involved in murders, it gives us a probabilty that there can be political prisoners that have commited murder but not granted bail.

So conclusion I does not follow.

Can yo Justify my expalin to be wrong for not marking same answer mentioned???

Explanation to the Answer:

Political prisoners who were in jail were there due to:

1. Political Dharnas.
2. Other reasons.

All the political prisoners in the category 'other reasons' were released.

Now, in this whole transaction, the people who had committed murder were not released. Now if the political prisoners belonging to 'other reasons' would have committed murders they wouldn't have been released.
But all of those belonging to 'other reasons' were released.

Hence, No political - prisoner had committed murder.

The statement says all those political prisoners were released who had gone for reasons other than political dharnas.Therefore there is a possibility that there were politicians in jail who were imprisoned for reasons other than political dharnas as well, one of the reasons also being murder.So there could be political prisoners who are in jail for reasons of murder(i.e.other than political dharnas). Hence it cannot be definitely concluded that-No political - prisoner had committed murder.

Option D should be the answer.

Its clear when the political prisoner achieved bail.

Now, if the question arise then late me clear you the answer is already in the question. "political prisoner released on bail. Bail was not granted persons involved in murder".

See, If the political prisoner was involved in murder then the correction hall will not grant the bail. Think clearly. I bet you ll get the answer all by yourselves.

All those politicians were released who committed any crime, other than dharna (so 'any crime' will include murder as well), were released.

But murderers are still in jail.

Hence no politician committed murder.

Because if any politician had committed murder he'd have been in jail. But only those are in jail who are charged with Dharma.

So, A is correct.

Political prisoners have committed only dharnas---they will get bail.

2nd thing political prisoners did not committed murder (stick to the statement don't imagine).

The prisoner who murdered won't get bail.

All political prisoners got bail, it means no one had committed muder.

Option D should be the answer as the statement I saying No political - prisoner had committed murder.

Bail was not granted to persons involved in murders.

How can we be sure they have not committed murder or not? They might have been committed one, it is not proven.

But it says all those political persons who were not involved in dharnas were released on bail. This could also mean that there were some politicians who could also be in jail for murder, and hence were not given bail. I too think the answer given doesn't make sense.

I Can't accept option A. As mentioned above by @Sch203, It is all those politicians and not all the politicians so how can we say that politicians are not involved in murders. So according to me option D will follow.