Statement: "People who regularly exercise are less likely to fall ill."
Conclusions:
I. Regular exercise improves immunity.
II. Illness is directly linked to lack of physical activity.
Statement Analysis: Exercise and Illness
The core statement is: "People who regularly exercise are less likely to fall ill." This statement establishes a relationship between the habit of regular exercise and a lower probability of getting sick (falling ill). It suggests that engaging in exercise has a beneficial effect on health, making individuals more resistant to illnesses.
Conclusion I: Exercise Improves Immunity
Let's examine the first conclusion: "Regular exercise improves immunity."
- The original statement indicates that regular exercise leads to people being less likely to fall ill.
- A common and scientifically supported reason why people become less likely to fall ill is because their immune system is stronger.
- Therefore, it is logical to infer that regular exercise contributes to enhancing or improving the body's immunity, which in turn helps prevent illness.
- This conclusion provides a plausible mechanism for the observation stated in the premise.
Hence, Conclusion I logically follows from the given statement.
Conclusion II: Illness and Physical Activity
Now, let's analyze the second conclusion: "Illness is directly linked to lack of physical activity."
- The original statement focuses on the *positive* impact of having regular exercise (reducing the likelihood of illness).
- Conclusion II talks about the *negative* impact of the *absence* of physical activity (lack of physical activity leading to illness).
- While it might be true that a lack of exercise could contribute to illness, the original statement doesn't provide enough information to make this a direct deduction. The statement doesn't say that *only* lack of exercise causes illness or that *all* illnesses are linked to it. It only highlights the benefit of exercise.
- The statement implies a correlation, but Conclusion II makes a stronger claim about a direct link and causality regarding the *lack* of activity, which isn't explicitly supported by the premise alone.
Therefore, Conclusion II does not necessarily follow directly from the given statement.
Final Determination
Based on the analysis:
- Conclusion I logically follows as a potential explanation for the statement.
- Conclusion II is related but is not a direct logical deduction from the statement provided.
Thus, only Conclusion I follows.
Similar Questions
The statements given below are followed by two conclusions labelled I and II. Without resolving anything yourself, choose the conclusion which logically follows from the given statement.
Statements:
Most of the advocates are hard working.
Manoj is advocate.
Conclusion I: Manoj is politician.
Conclusion II: Some advocates do not work hard.The statement below is followed by two decisions labeled I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true and then decide which of the two suggested decisions logically follows for pursuing.
Statement:
The councilor of the area proposed to install CCTV camera in the locality to avoid crimes and to catch criminals.
Decisions:
I: Residents should welcome this proposal.
II: This is useless proposal: resident should oppose it.The statement below is followed by two conclusion labelled I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the conclusions logically follows for pursuing.
Statement: Drinking milk is beneficial for health.
Conclusion I: All healthy people drink milk.
Conclusion II: Milk is harmful for child.The statement below is followed by two conclusions labelled I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the conclusions logically follows for pursuing.
Statements:
All organised person find time for entertainment. Mahesh in spite his busy schedule, find time for entertainment.
Conclusion:
I. Mahesh is organized person.
II. Mahesh is an actor.- Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows.
Statement: "Advertisements on social media have more reach than print media."
Conclusions:
I. Social media is more effective than print media for advertising.
II. Print media is obsolete. - Statement: Innovation requires risk-taking, but excessive risks without planning can lead to failure.
Conclusion I: Risk-taking alone does not guarantee innovation.
Conclusion II: Planning is always necessary for successful innovation.
Which conclusion follows? - Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows.
Statements: All flowers are trees. Some trees are plants.
Conclusions:
I. Some flowers are plants.
II. All flowers are plants. - Statement: Emotional intelligence enhances leadership, but without technical expertise, leaders may fail to meet organizational objectives. Conclusion I: Emotional intelligence alone is not enough for leadership success.
Conclusion II: Technical expertise ensures effective leadership.
Which conclusion follows? - Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows.
Statement: The school has made computer training compulsory for all students.
Conclusions:
I. Computer knowledge is essential in the modern world.
II. All students will become computer experts.
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.
