Logical Reasoning - Statement and Conclusion - Discussion
Discussion Forum : Statement and Conclusion - Section 3 (Q.No. 40)
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.
40.
Statements: The 'Official Secrets Act' (OSA) enacted by the ABC government during the war seems to be one of the major source of corruption in the country X.
Conclusions:
- The OSA has to be abolished immediately to put an end to the corruption in the country X.
- The ABC government had an intention of encouraging corruption in the government offices.
Answer: Option
Explanation:
The statement declares enactment of OSA as the direct cause of increase in corruption. So, I follows. However, enactment of an act by a government is undertaken for betterment and not with the intention of encouraging corruption though whatever may be the outcome later on. So, II does not follow.
Discussion:
9 comments Page 1 of 1.
Julia said:
1 decade ago
I don't agree. The Statement says that the OSA is ONE OF THE MAJOR SOURCE - meaning there are other sources (maybe also major, maybe minor but also contributing). Therefore, abolishing the OSA will not put an end to the corruption in country X, it will simply reduce it greatly. Conclusion I should be corrected to "The OSA has to be abolished immediately to greatly reduce the corruption in the country X"
(3)
Santa Clause said:
10 years ago
Apart from what Julia said, abolition of act is not a solution. The act can be amended to reduce corruption. So none should follow.
(1)
J.J. said:
9 years ago
I agree with you both, either is a solution to the problems posed by this question, point being the Question itself is flawed.
As it stands now(the question) - None should Follow.
As it stands now(the question) - None should Follow.
(1)
Bernardo said:
9 years ago
Totally agree with you @Julia.
Chamae C said:
8 years ago
@Julia.
Your statement is very true.
Your statement is very true.
Bhavya said:
5 years ago
This is conclusion is not a course of action type question! Am I right? Anyone explain.
ATYE JOHN said:
5 years ago
I totally agree @Julia,
Abolishing the OSA will not put an end to the corruption in country X, it will simply reduce it greatly.
Abolishing the OSA will not put an end to the corruption in country X, it will simply reduce it greatly.
Prakhar said:
4 years ago
Totally. What's the guarantee that corruption would end once this act is abolished? Please be clear about this.
Chicka said:
3 years ago
Yes, I agree with you @Julia,
As it is said that OSA is just one of the major sources of corruption, and revoking OSA does not guarantee a 100% corruption-free nation.
As it is said that OSA is just one of the major sources of corruption, and revoking OSA does not guarantee a 100% corruption-free nation.
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers