Consider the given statement to be true and decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the statement. Statement: Conclusions: 2. Government should create awareness about ill effects of public smoking.
Public smoking has increased in the current year.
1. Government should ban public smoking.
Neither 1 nor 2 follows.
Analyzing the Public Smoking Statement and Conclusions
Let's carefully examine the given statement and the conclusions to determine which one, if any, logically follows.
The Statement:
- Public smoking has increased in the current year.
This statement presents a simple observation or a factual claim about a trend. It tells us that the quantity or frequency of public smoking is higher this year compared to a previous period (implied by "increased"). It does not provide any information about the reasons for the increase, the effects of public smoking, or what actions should be taken.
The Conclusions:
- Government should ban public smoking.
- Government should create awareness about ill effects of public smoking.
These conclusions are policy recommendations or suggestions for action that the government should take. They are prescriptive statements, suggesting what ought to be done.
Examining Conclusion 1: Banning Public Smoking
Conclusion 1 suggests that the government should ban public smoking. Does the statement "Public smoking has increased" logically lead to this conclusion? Not necessarily.
- The statement only informs us about an increase in public smoking.
- It does not tell us if public smoking is harmful.
- It does not tell us if a ban is the most effective or appropriate response to an increase, even if it were harmful.
- Logical deduction requires the conclusion to be necessarily true if the premise is true. The increase in smoking does not make a ban a logical necessity based solely on the statement.
For Conclusion 1 to logically follow, the statement would need to include information connecting the increase to reasons for banning (e.g., "Increased public smoking is causing severe health problems," or "Any level of public smoking is harmful and its increase necessitates a ban"). Since this information is missing, Conclusion 1 does not logically follow from the statement alone.
Examining Conclusion 2: Creating Awareness about Ill Effects
Conclusion 2 suggests that the government should create awareness about the ill effects of public smoking. Does the statement "Public smoking has increased" logically lead to this conclusion? Again, not necessarily.
- The statement only notes an increase in the activity.
- It does not state that public smoking has ill effects.
- It does not state that lack of awareness is the reason for the increase.
- While creating awareness might be a reasonable action to take in response to increased smoking, it is not a logical deduction based *only* on the fact that smoking has increased.
Similar to Conclusion 1, for Conclusion 2 to logically follow, the statement would need additional premises, such as "Public smoking has significant ill effects, and an increase in it suggests a need for greater public awareness." The original statement lacks this crucial information.
Conclusion: Logical Inference from the Statement
Logical reasoning requires drawing inferences that are strictly supported by the premises. The statement provides a fact about an increase in public smoking. The conclusions offer potential actions or policies. Deriving an action ("should do this") from a purely descriptive observation ("this is happening") is generally not considered a strict logical inference without additional information or assumed premises about values, consequences, or goals.
Neither conclusion logically follows from the statement because the statement simply describes a trend and does not provide the necessary information about harm, effectiveness of actions, or reasons for policy intervention that would make either conclusion a logical necessity.
Revision Table: Understanding Logic Questions
| Concept | Explanation | Relation to Public Smoking Question |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | A piece of information given as true (a premise). | "Public smoking has increased in the current year." |
| Conclusion | An inference or claim that supposedly follows from the statement(s). | Policy suggestions (ban, awareness). |
| Logically Follows | The conclusion must be true if the statement(s) is/are true. The relationship is necessary. | Does the statement necessitate the conclusion? No, in this case. |
| Assumption | Information taken for granted but not explicitly stated. | Assuming public smoking is harmful, assuming government's role, etc., are assumptions not in the statement. |
Additional Information: Logic vs. Prescription
This question highlights the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements in logical reasoning.
- Descriptive statements describe how the world *is*. Example: "The sky is blue." "Public smoking has increased."
- Prescriptive statements prescribe how the world *should be* or what action *should be taken*. Example: "You should study hard." "Government should ban smoking."
In formal logic, you cannot logically derive a "should" statement (prescription) solely from an "is" statement (description) without including a premise that links the description to a prescription. This is sometimes referred to as the "is-ought problem."
The statement about the increase in public smoking is purely descriptive. The conclusions are prescriptive. Without additional premises that bridge the gap between the observed increase and the recommended actions, the conclusions do not logically follow. While the conclusions might seem like reasonable actions in the real world, based on common knowledge about smoking and health, logical reasoning tests require you to stick strictly to the information provided in the statement.
Important Questions from Statements and Conclusions
A situation is given, followed by two conclusions I and II. Read the situation and both the conclusions carefully and select the correct answer.
Situation:
Since the past 15 years, 75% of the products in the world’s pottery market comes from Country K. However, the employment in the pottery industry of Country K has been consistently declining by 5-9% every year since the past 3 years.
Conclusions:
I. Even after declining employment, Country K has enough potters to continue contributing equally to the international market.
II. The local demand of pottery in Country K has substantially decreased leading to less interest among potters.
The statement below is followed by three conclusions labelled I, II and III. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the three suggested conclusions logically follows for pursuing.
Statements:
1) No school is an institution but they are establishment.
2) All establishments that are not institutions have buildings.
Conclusions:
I. Schools are not establishments.
II. All schools have buildings.
III. Schools do not have buildings.Read the given statements and conclusion carefully and decide which of the following options is true with respect to the given conclusion.
Statements:
The Gateway of India is in Mumbai.
Mumbai is in India.
Conclusion:
The Gateway of India is in India.
Read the given statements and conclusion carefully and decide which of the following options is true with respect to the given conclusion.
Statements:
Men who are handsome are generally of the intellectual type.
Vikram is handsome.
Conclusion:
Vikram is intellectual.Given is a statement, followed by four conclusions. Read the statement carefully and decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the given statement.
Statement:
This book can help because all good books help.
Conclusions:
I. This is not a good book.
II. This is a good book.
III. No good book helps.
IV. Some good books help.
