S2: Successive failures are not however successive stepping stones to success.
The second sentence:
The question asks us to determine the relationship between two sentences, S1 and S2, concerning the idea of failure and success.
Sentence S1: "Failure is the stepping stone to success."
Sentence S2: "Successive failures are not however successive stepping stones to success."
We need to find how S2 relates to the wisdom of S1. Let's look at the options:
S2 does not directly negate S1. It doesn't say failure *cannot* be a stepping stone, only that *repeated* failures aren't necessarily so. Contradiction implies S1 is entirely false, which S2 doesn't claim.
While S2 presents a different perspective than the simple optimism of S1, "contrasts" might not be the best fit. Contrast highlights differences, but S2 seems more like a refinement or limitation rather than a direct opposition.
S2 does not confirm S1. It adds a condition and questions the automatic progression from failure to success, especially in the case of repeated failures. Confirmation would mean S2 reinforces S1's message, which it doesn't.
This option suggests that S2 adds a condition, limitation, or specific circumstance to the general statement of S1. S2 implies that the proverb in S1 holds true under certain conditions, but not universally, especially when dealing with multiple, sequential failures. It makes the original statement less absolute. This accurately describes the relationship.
Sentence S2 doesn't completely deny the idea that failure can lead to success (S1). Instead, it points out that the process isn't always straightforward, particularly when failures occur multiple times in a row. Therefore, S2 qualifies the wisdom of S1 by adding a nuance or condition.
Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statements is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the statements.
Statements:
All cats are bills.
No snakes are bills.
All snakes are dolls.
Conclusions:
(I) Some dolls are not cats.
(II) No bills are dolls.