Statement and Inference Analysis

This question asks us to analyze a given statement about a National Expressway and determine which of the subsequent inferences logically follow from it. We must treat the statement as true, even if it contradicts common knowledge.

Analyzing the Given Statement on National Expressway

The statement provides information about National Expressway-A:

• It is the widest expressway.
• It is used by few people.
• When roads are empty and wide (like this expressway), people tend to drive at high speed.
• Driving at high speed leads to accidents.

The core relationship presented here is a chain: Wide/Empty Road → High Speed → Accidents.

Evaluating Inference I: Do All Accidents Result from Over Speeding?

Inference I states: "All accidents happen due to over speeding."

Let's consider the statement again. The statement says that high speed leads to accidents. It establishes high speed as a cause or a factor for accidents, particularly in the context of empty, wide roads. However, the statement does not claim that high speed is the *only* cause of accidents. Accidents can occur due to various reasons other than over speeding, such as:

• Poor vehicle maintenance
• Bad weather conditions
• Driver distraction
• Road defects
• Driving under influence
• Failure to follow traffic rules (other than speed limits)

Since the statement only mentions that high speed is one factor leading to accidents, we cannot conclude that *all* accidents are caused by over speeding. The word "All" makes this inference an overgeneralization that is not supported by the specific information given in the statement.

Therefore, Inference I does not follow from the statement.

Evaluating Inference II: Does High Speed Increase Accident Risk?

Inference II states: "High speed increases the risk of accident."

The statement explicitly says, "When people find an empty and wide road, people drive at high speed, which leads to accidents." The phrase "leads to accidents" directly implies a causal link or a strong correlation between high speed and accidents. If high speed leads to accidents, it logically means that high speed makes accidents more likely to happen, which is equivalent to saying it increases the risk of accidents.

This inference is a direct consequence derived from the cause-and-effect relationship mentioned in the statement (High Speed → Accidents). The statement provides the premise that high speed is a factor contributing to accidents, thus increasing their likelihood or risk.

Therefore, Inference II follows from the statement.

Conclusion on Following Inferences

Based on the analysis:

• Inference I ("All accidents happen due to over speeding") does not follow because the statement does not rule out other causes of accidents.
• Inference II ("High speed increases the risk of accident") follows directly from the statement's assertion that high speed leads to accidents.

Thus, only Inference II follows from the given statement.

Revision Table: Statement vs. Inferences

Additional Information: Understanding Statements and Inferences

In logical reasoning questions like this, an inference is a conclusion that can be drawn from one or more statements. For an inference to "follow" from a statement, it must be logically necessary based *only* on the information provided in the statement. We cannot use outside knowledge or assumptions.

• Statement: A piece of information given as true.
• Inference: A conclusion derived strictly from the statement(s).

When evaluating inferences, be careful about words like "All", "None", "Only", "Always", "Never". These words often make an inference too absolute and might not be supported by a statement that implies a correlation or a partial cause.

In this case, the statement provides a specific relationship (high speed on empty/wide roads leads to accidents), allowing the inference about increased risk (Inference II). However, it does not provide a universal rule about the cause of *all* accidents (Inference I).