The given statement is followed by some courses of action. Assuming the statement to be true decide the correct option. Statement: There has been a significant drop in the water level in the lakes supplying water to the city.
Statements I and II follow.
Statement Analysis: Significant Drop in City Water Levels
The core issue presented is a "significant drop in the water level" in the city's primary water sources (lakes). This indicates a potential water shortage crisis that requires careful management.
Evaluating Courses of Action
Course of Action I: Partial Supply Cut
Statement: The water supply authority should impose a partial cut in supply to tackle the situation.
Analysis: When water sources are depleted, reducing the overall demand is a logical step. A partial cut, implemented by the authority, is a direct measure to conserve the remaining water and extend its availability. This helps manage the crisis by ensuring supply, albeit reduced, reaches more people for a longer duration.
Conclusion: This action is a reasonable and practical response to the problem.
Course of Action II: Public Appeal for Minimal Use
Statement: The government should appeal to all the residents through mass media for minimal use of water.
Analysis: Encouraging voluntary conservation among residents can significantly reduce overall water consumption. Public awareness campaigns via mass media can inform citizens about the severity of the situation and encourage responsible water usage (e.g., avoiding wastage, shorter showers). This complements supply-side measures.
Conclusion: This action supports conservation efforts and is a sensible approach.
Course of Action III: Ban Supply in Lower Areas
Statement: The government should ban the water supply in lower areas.
Analysis: This action seems arbitrary. There's no inherent reason provided why lower areas specifically should face a complete supply ban. Water shortages typically require equitable distribution or need-based allocation, not bans based on geographical location like elevation without further justification. Such a ban could disproportionately affect residents without addressing the root cause effectively or fairly.
Conclusion: This action is unlikely to be a logical or fair solution and does not directly address the overall water level drop problem effectively.
Conclusion: Following Courses of Action
Based on the analysis, Course of Action I (partial supply cut) and Course of Action II (public appeal for minimal use) are logical and appropriate steps to manage the situation described in the statement. Course of Action III is not a well-reasoned response.
Therefore, statements I and II logically follow from the given statement.
Important Questions from Critical Reasoning
As a responsible person, which of the following is not advisable?
- A, B, and C have a few chocolates among themselves. A gives to each of the other two half the number of chocolates they already have. Similarly B and C (in that order) give each of the other two half the number of chocolates each of them already has. Now, if each of them has the same number of chocolates, what could be the minimum number of chocolates they have among themselves?
Given question has main statement followed by four statements. Choose the ordered pair of statements, where the first statement implies the second, and the two statements are logically consistent with the main statement.
When she takes an examination, she clears it.
A. she took an examination
B. she did not take an examination
C. she cleared it.
D. she did not clear it.
You are alone in your house and there is a danger of thieves around. You hear a knock on the door. What should be your most logical action?
While traveling in a train, you notice that a lady from the coach behind you falls from the stairs of the train. What should be your best rational course of action?
