IndiaBIX

Logical Reasoning - Statement and Conclusion - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Statement and Conclusion - Section 1 (Q.No. 3)
Statement and Conclusion
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.

Give answer:

  • (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.

3.

Statements: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.

Conclusions:

  1. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.
  2. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.
Only conclusion I follows
Only conclusion II follows
Either I or II follows
Neither I nor II follows
Both I and II follow
Answer: Option
Explanation:
According to the statement, Government has spoiled financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors. This means that only those persons should be appointed as Directors who are experts in finance and are acquainted with the financial work of the institute. So, both I and II follow.
Discussion:
12 comments Page 1 of 2.
Yash said:   1 decade ago
Though E is correct answer but der is an argument from my side. It is mentioned that Financial Institutions had been spoiled and in conclusion 2 The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute. mentioned dat Financial work carried out by institute which is actually Financial institute so the works nature is likely to be related with Finance. So Only conclusion 1 follows seems to be a better option.
B. Shankar said:   1 decade ago
Main statement includes following statements,
1. Govt has spoilled many financial institutions.
2. All spoiled institutions are top ranking financial institutions.
3. Govt has appointed bureaucrats on spoilled institutions.
4. Govt appointed bureaucrats as director on spoilled institutions.

Dear Yash

Look at above four statements. You will easily conclude that,

a) Director must be expert in finance to avoid spoilage.
b) Director must be exposed to financial institution and their work.

Consider 4 statements as argument and conclude. Your conclusion will be a and b.

Therefore the answer is E.
Uma said:   1 decade ago
Dear Shankar

In the statement ,it is not specified anywhere that "Govt has appointed bureaucrats on spoilled institutions"
financial institutions as spoilled only after appointing bureaucrats.
(1)
Mahesh said:   1 decade ago
What is the meaning of bureaucrats ?
(1)
Nishanth nagabandi said:   1 decade ago
An official in a government department, who are appointed independent of their qualification and are encouraged by politicians for their benefits.
(2)
Reena said:   9 years ago
Why not C as answer? As both conclusions saying the same things.
(2)
Rahul said:   8 years ago
Which angle you have to seen the statement, I have a question that is in the statement says goverment spoil, the statement is negative meaning is consider or positive meaning consider. I don't understand this so anybody please help me.
(2)
Sangeetha said:   6 years ago
I am not understanding this, please help me.
(5)
Aniruddh Balram said:   6 years ago
Should it not be either I or II? As both the conclusions point to the same.
(1)
Nitin said:   5 years ago
It should be Option D.
(3)
Post your comments here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.

Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers