Based on the statement(s) given below, choose the best possible conclusion (s) that follows: Statements: A. Players who break records in a fair way are given a special reward. B. Player XYZ broke the world record but was found to be under the influence of prohibited drug. Conclusions: I. The accusation on Player XYZ was false. II. Player XYZ will not get the special reward. A. Only conclusion I follows B. Only conclusion II follows C. Both conclusion I and II follow
B
Understanding Statements and Conclusions in Logical Reasoning
This question asks us to analyze two given statements and determine which of the provided conclusions logically follows from them. Let's break down the statements and conclusions one by one.
Analyzing the Given Statements
- Statement A: Players who break records in a fair way are given a special reward.
- Statement B: Player XYZ broke the world record but was found to be under the influence of prohibited drug.
Examining the Given Conclusions
- Conclusion I: The accusation on Player XYZ was false.
- Conclusion II: Player XYZ will not get the special reward.
Step-by-Step Logical Analysis
We need to assess if each conclusion can be definitively drawn based *only* on the information provided in Statements A and B.
Analyzing Conclusion I: The accusation on Player XYZ was false.
Statement B explicitly states that Player XYZ "was found to be under the influence of prohibited drug". This is presented as a factual finding within the context of the statements. There is no information in either Statement A or Statement B that contradicts this finding or suggests the accusation was false. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the accusation was false based on the given statements.
Analyzing Conclusion II: Player XYZ will not get the special reward.
Statement A sets a condition for receiving the special reward: breaking records "in a fair way". Statement B tells us that Player XYZ broke a record but used a prohibited drug. Using prohibited drugs is generally considered an unfair practice in sports. Since Player XYZ broke the record while under the influence of a prohibited drug, it implies that the record was *not* broken in a fair way as defined or implied by the context of fair play in conjunction with Statement A. Because the condition for the special reward (breaking the record in a fair way) is not met by Player XYZ, it logically follows that Player XYZ will not receive the special reward.
Evaluating the Options
Based on our analysis:
- Conclusion I does not follow from the statements.
- Conclusion II logically follows from the statements.
Now let's look at the given options:
- Option A: Only conclusion I follows. (Incorrect, as Conclusion I does not follow)
- Option B: Only conclusion II follows. (Correct, as Conclusion II follows and Conclusion I does not)
- Option C: Both conclusion I and II follow. (Incorrect, as Conclusion I does not follow)
- Option D: Neither conclusion I nor II follows. (Incorrect, as Conclusion II does follow)
Therefore, the only conclusion that follows is Conclusion II.
Conclusion from Statements Analysis
Based on the detailed analysis of both statements and conclusions, only Conclusion II is a valid inference drawn from the given information.
| Statement/Conclusion | Analysis | Follows? |
|---|---|---|
| Statement A | Condition for reward: Break record fairly. | N/A |
| Statement B | Player XYZ broke record, used prohibited drug. | N/A |
| Conclusion I | Accusation on Player XYZ was false. | Statement B says drug use was found; no info suggests falsity. Does NOT Follow. |
| Conclusion II | Player XYZ will not get the reward. | Drug use means not fair play (from B), so condition for reward (from A) is not met. Follows. |
Revision Table: Statements and Conclusions
| Statements | Key Implication | Conclusion | Logical Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Fair record > Reward | Player XYZ's record was not achieved fairly. | I: Accusation false | Cannot be concluded from statements. |
| B: Player XYZ broke record & used drug | II: Player XYZ not rewarded | Logically follows from A & B. |
Additional Information: Drawing Inferences
This question is a classic example of drawing inferences from given statements, a common topic in logical reasoning. To solve such questions, it's crucial to:
- Read the statements carefully and accept them as true within the context of the problem.
- Analyze each conclusion independently.
- Determine if the conclusion can be logically and directly derived *only* from the information given in the statements. Do not use outside knowledge unless explicitly permitted.
- Be careful with assumptions. If something is not explicitly stated or a direct consequence of the statements, it cannot be concluded.
In this case, the link between using a prohibited drug and not breaking a record "in a fair way" is a reasonable inference within the context of sports and fair play, allowing us to connect Statement B back to the condition in Statement A.
Important Questions from Statements and Conclusions
In the following question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions based on those statements. Taking the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follows the given statements.
Statements:
I. All A are B.
II. Some B are C.
Conclusions:
I. Some A are C.
II. Some A are not C.
III. Some A are B.
Read the given statements and conclusions carefully and decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements.
Statement:
A asked C, "What time is it now?" Is it half past two? ''
Conclusions:
1. A wants to go to lunch.
2. A wants to confirm what the time is because his watch is off.
In the question one statement is given, followed by two conclusions, I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements.
Statement : 55% of Manisha's office colleagues went to watch the movie.
Conclusion I : Manisha went to watch the movie.
Conclusion II : Manisha did not go to watch the movie.
In the question two statements are given, followed by two conclusions, I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements.
Statement 1 : All schools are books.
Statement 2 : No books are papers.
Conclusion I : No schools are books.
Conclusion II : Some books are schools.
In the question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions based on those statements. Take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be different from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements.
Statements:
I. Some P are Q.
II. All P are N.
Conclusion:
I. All Q are N.
II. Some P are not Q.
