STATEMENT & CONCLUSION (General Mental Ability) UPSC EPFO

Total Questions: 20

1. 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.

Statements: In a one day cricket match, the total runs made by a team were 200.
Out of these 160 runs were made by spinners.
Conclusions:
I. 80% of the team consists of spinners.
II. The opening batsmen were spinners.

Correct Answer: (d) Neither I nor II follows
Solution:

According to the statement, 80% of the total runs were made by spinners. So, I does not follow. Nothing about the opening batsmen is mentioned in the statement. So, II also does not follow.

2. Statements:

The old order changed yielding place to new.
Conclusions:
I. Change is the law of nature.
II. Discard old ideas because they are old.

Correct Answer: (a) Only conclusion I follows
Solution:

Clearly, I directly follows from the given statement. Also, it is mentioned that old ideas are replaced by new ones, as thinking changes with the progressing time. So, II does not follow.

3. Statements:

Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.
Conclusions:
I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.
II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.

Correct Answer: (d) Both I and II follow
Solution:

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.

4. Statements:

Population increase coupled with depleting resources is going to be the scenario of many
developing countries in days to come.
Conclusions:
I. The population of developing countries will not continue to increase in future.
II. It will be very difficult for the governments of developing countries to provide its people decent quality of life.

Correct Answer: (b) Only conclusion II follows
Solution:

The fact given in I is quite contrary to the given statement. So, I does not follow. II mentions the direct implications of the state discussed in the statement. Thus, II follows.

5. Statements:

Prime age school-going children in urban India have now become avid as well as more regular viewers of television, even in households without a TV. As a result there has been an alarming decline in the extent of readership of newspapers.
Conclusions:
I. Method of increasing the readership of newspapers should be devised.
II. A team of experts should be sent to other countries to study the impact of TV on the readership of newspapers.

Correct Answer: (d) Neither I nor II follows
Solution:

The statement concentrates on the increasing viewership of TV and does not stress either on increasing the readership of newspapers or making studies regarding the same. So, neither I nor II follows.

6. Statements:

A man must be wise to be a good wrangler. Good wranglers are talkative and boring.
Conclusions:
I. All the wise persons are boring.
II. All the wise persons are good wranglers.

Correct Answer: (d) Neither I nor II follows
Solution:

According to the statement, good wranglers are wise men. But it doesn’t mean that all wise men are good wranglers. So, neither I nor II follows.

7. Statements:

“The Government will review the present policy of the diesel price in view of further spurt in the international oil prices”. – A spokesman of the Government.
Conclusions:
I. The Government will increase the price of the diesel after the imminent spurt in the international oil prices.
II. The Government will not increase the price of the diesel even after the imminent spurt in the international oil prices.

Correct Answer: (c) Either I or II follows
Solution:

The Government seeks to review the policy so as to determine whether the diesel price needs to be increased or it can be kept stable by adjusting certain other factors. So, either decision may be taken. Thus, either I or II follows.

8. Statements:

The Government of country X has recently announced several concessions and offered attractive package tours for foreign visitors.
Conclusions:
I. Now, more number of foreign tourists will visit the country.
II. The Government of country X seems to be serious in attracting tourists.

Correct Answer: (d) Both I and II follow
Solution:Clearly, the government has taken the step to attract more tourists. So, both I and II follow.

9. Statements:

After this amendment to the Constitution, no child below the age of 14 years will be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.
Conclusions:
I. Before this amendment, children below 14 years were employed to work in factory or mine.
II. The employers must now abide by this amendment to the Constitution.

Correct Answer: (d) Both I and II follow
Solution:

The statement mentions that after the amendment, no child below 14 years will be engaged in hazardous employment. This means that before the amendment, the practice of employing children below 14 years was in vogue. This in turn means that employers will have to abide by the amendment. So, both I and II follow.

10. Statements:

It has been decided by the Government to withdraw 33% of the subsidy on cooking gas from the beginning of next month. – A spokesman of the Government.
Conclusions:
I. People now no more desire or need such subsidy from Government as they can afford increased price of the cooking gas.
II. The price of the cooking gas will increase at least by 33% from the next month.

Correct Answer: (d) Neither I nor II follows
Solution:

The decision to withdraw subsidy has clearly been taken to compensate for the loss and not because people can now afford to pay more for cooking gas. So, I does not follow. Also, the statement talks of withdrawing 33% of the prevailing subsidy and not of reducing 33% of the actual price. So, II also does not follow.