Q1.Correct answer: A
Such a format for a question checking for inferences is uncommon but not altogether absent.
The statement implies that passenger claims on the Railways on account of lost baggage or other losses in a train accident have hitherto involved a lot of hassles for the claimant, and that these claims have typically been settled through a cheque that takes as long as years to arrive. The next time around, though, such claimants would not have to undergo such an experience. It is implicit in all this that something new has taken place, something that is likely to eliminate the said hassles and waiting time for compensation.
Option 1 sounds convincing straightaway. If checks will no longer take years to arrive at the doorsteps of beneficiaries, it is deductively inferable that there will be quicker settlement of claims. And since the logic is deductively valid, you should not waste time checking out the other options.
Note also that option 5 gets rejected the moment we are convinced about the validity of option 1.
However, for the sake of comprehension, let us know why options 2, 3 and 4 get rejected
Continuing from the underlined sentence above, we can see that nothing is said or suggested or implied in the statement about what this new development is. Neither stated facts nor implicit assumptions have anything to do with Aadhaar card (option 2), insurance companies (option 3) and IRCTC (option 4), which in in turn means that inferences regarding these entities will be categorized as the ‘data inadequate type,’ i.e. invalid. We can see now why options 2 or 3 or 4 cannot be the right choice
1 is the right choice!
Q2. Correct answer: A
The statement implies that people with anger issues, i.e. people who get angry too often and too easily, have the tendency of thinking that others are being hostile towards them, when they are not being so at all. It would be a deductively valid to conclude from this that such people often make wrong conclusions about the intention of others, and this means that conclusion II is valid
But conclusion II is certainly not a conclusion that we can draw on the basis of the facts of the statement. Conclusion II is in reality an argument that strengthens the claim made in the statement, i.e. a supportive argument in relation to the statement.
Q3. Correct answer: E
Note: The meaning of the word ‘vindicated’ is ‘proved right,’ i.e. ‘justified.’
Assumption I is implicit. If Arnab conducted a sober interview with Narendra Modi, it is implicit that he is capable of conducting sober interviews, even though, as the small passage tells us, this was something that was quite unlike him, i.e. that he normally conducts interviews that cannot be called sober. Here, the underlying principle is that one can be assumed of being capable of doing something if one has actually done that thing even once.
Note: Clear up your understanding of axiomatic truths to get the theoretical justification for the validity of assumption I
Assumption II is also implicit. The last sentence of the passage implies that Arnab Goswami is unlikely to change his ways as an interviewer, even though the speaker expresses his/her desire that Arnab conduct sober interviews regularly. The speaker expresses his opinion that Arnab will continue to conduct non-sober interviews by noting that it would be too optimistic to think that the sober interview with Modi would be a turning point in Arnab’s career. It is implicit here that too much of anything, including optimism, is unlikely to be vindicated. The implication rides on the universally valid assumption that too much of anything, even a good thing, is bad
Q4. Solution :
Inference I is valid. The statement tells us that Nepartak made first landfall in eastern Taiwan. It is implicit here that there would be a part of Taiwan called western Taiwan too. It follows deductively from this implication that the typhoon was not blowing in from a westerly direction, for otherwise it would not have made first landfall in eastern Taiwan.
But inference II is invalid. It is true that the destruction and loss of life associated with storms and tempests is mainly caused by winds blowing at high speed. And thus it sounds probably true that Nepartak would have taken more lives had it been blowing harder. But the problem is with the phrase ‘many more fatalities.’ How much more would be many more? Note that the word ‘more’ is quantifiable; even ‘one more death’ would imply ‘more deaths.’ But ‘many more deaths’ is a matter of opinion, not objective facts. To some people even one more death would mean many more of them, whereas for others even a hundred more deaths would not be many more of them! And also there are too many other things that we will have to assume to validate this inference. To name just one, we would have to assume that there were enough people living in the destructive path of the typhoon, but for this assumption, like so many other ones, there is no basis, meaning that inference II is the data inadequate of inference, i.e. that it does not follow.
Q5. Correct answer: A
From the first sentence of the passage it clear that Modi was in Johannesburg in South Africa on the first day of his visit to this country. And under the valid assumption that most top level political visits begin at the visited country’s seat of government, it would be correct to conclude that Johannesburg is the seat of the South African government. But we have already noted that most, and not all, top level political visits begin at the visited country’s seat of government, and also that inference I uses the definite verb ‘is.’ Thus we will have to categorize it as ‘probably true,’ i.e. it is a correct inference, not a false one.
But inference II is invalid. The second sentence of the passage tells us that Manmohan Singh came to Durban in South Africa to attend the G20 summit in 2013. Since G20 is a multilateral forum, it is clear that Singh’s visit to South Africa was not a bilateral affair. It would have been bilateral had Singh made the visit solely for the sake of India-South Africa ties.
Q6. Correct answer: B
If the proposed bill is passed into law, it is indeed likely to have a major impact on big Indian IT companies. This is because the revenue model of a majority of these big Indian IT companies is heavily dependent on H-1B and L1 visas in the US. Thus conclusion I definitely follows
And so does conclusion II. The statement tells us that the bill has been proposed by a bipartisan group of two US lawmakers. This means the two lawmakers come from opposing sides; i.e. they do not belong to the same political party.
Note: Check out the meaning of the words partisan, bi-partisan non-partisan to get the justification for the validity of conclusion II
Q7. Correct answer: B
It is implied in the statement that a can of pepper spray, a personal alarm, and keys to clutch between the knuckles, are already seen as essential defence tools for women to carry as protection against possible harm (most typically at the hands of eve teasers, molesters and lunatics). The question is whether women should carry a powerful light-weight flashlight as well under the given circumstances
Argument I is weak. Restricted mobility would be the last thing a woman would want when her physical security is under threat for the simple reason that carrying more things on her person would restrict her mobility at a time when she would need it the most. But all the four things mentioned in the statement are light-weight objects; in fact the flashlight has the adjective light-weight attached to it. Thus extra weight as a restrictor of mobility is a line of argument that is negated right at the beginning
But argument II is strong. It does not imply that pepper spray, personal alarm and keys to use as knuckles are not needed by physically threatened women. Rather it tells us that such women would need a powerful light-weight flashlight equally, if not more, in their hour of danger. And the reason for the reason for the stand it takes is that:
a. Pepper spray, personal alarm and keys to use as knuckles are not as quickly enabled (activated) as a light-weight flashlight. Implied also is that any delay in responding to the threat posed by an attacker increases the chance of getting harmed
b. Pepper spray, personal alarm and keys to use as knuckles will not do certain things that a flashlight will, and that being able to do these things will make physically threatened women safer: it will expose an attacker lurking in the shadows, dazzle and blind an attacker, and come in handy as a blunt object for defence
Q8. Correct answer: C
The statement is that diabetes affects women in a unique way, and the question asks us to identify the option that supports this claim. The key word is ‘unique.’ If diabetes affects women in a unique way, the implication is that the effect of diabetes on women is exceptional in some or more ways, i.e. that only women have to undergo certain experiences as diabetics
Option A is ruled out as a glance. If diabetes can be a killer it means it can kill those who suffer from it. Option A does not tell us that only women suffer from diabetes, nor is this a fact, in any case. So where is the uniqueness?
Option B says that more women than men suffer from diabetes. Again this implies that both men and women can suffer from diabetes. No uniqueness here either.
But Option C sounds convincing straightaway. To begin with, the birth-giving capacity is in itself unique to women, but the real reason for the validity of this option is something else. The universally accepted fact—and therefore the assumption–is that the physical symptoms and consequences of disease are experienced only by the individuals suffering from it. In other words, if a person, or for that matter a woman, suffers from cancer, it is he or she alone that will die or survive. But the case of a woman diabetic is unique by reference to this universal assumption. The physical consequences of diabetes are experienced not only by a woman who suffers from this disease but also—if she happens to be pregnant—by another human being, viz. the child inside her body, the unborn child.
Option D says that older women are less capable of coping with diabetes compared to younger women. This does not suggest any thing unique about women as a whole. Rather option D tells about a difference among women themselves in relation to the effects of diabetes
And since D is ruled out, E cannot be the right answer either
Q9. Correct answer: E
The statement sees the speaker addressing the third person generalized ‘you.’ It is implicit here that ‘you,’ i.e. the entire set of people comprising ‘you,’ may be like an American. The hypothetical ‘If you are like most Americans’ suggests that you may be like most Americans or you may not be like them! If assumption I had said ‘you are like an American’ or ‘you are not like an American,’ it would have been invalid. This is because, had the speaker known that his intended audience was like most Americans or not so, there would be no need for the hypothetical ‘If you are like most Americans…’
Assumption II is easy to defend. The assumption substitutes the word ‘probably’ in the statement with ‘often,’ a justifiable substitution given that both these words are amenable to use as adverbs of frequency.
Assumption III is a clever inversion of the given statement. Note that statement inversions are restatements, not implicit assumptions or valid inferences
And as for assumptions IV and V, they are not assumptions at all. They are in fact Probably True Inferences drawn on the statement
Note: The moment you realize that assumption I is implicit, go to the list of options. It will tell you that one of options 1, 4 and 5 is the right answer. But, since assumption II is included in each of these three options, it will also tell you that assumption II is implicit as well. You will thus save yourself time, given that you will not have to cross check assumption II.
Q10. Correct answer: E
Inference I is an inversion of the first sentence of the passage. And the rule is that an inversion of a given statement can be neither an assumption implicit in it nor an inference drawn on it. In addition the inversion itself is faulty. The correct inversion of “…you could have a more serious problem” should have been “…you probably don’t have a serious problem.” But this attempted inversion says “…you do not suffer from OSD.” Thus inference I is rejected because it is an inversion, and on top of that it isn’t even a correct inversion. And because it employs the definite “…you do not suffer,” we will have to categorise it as definitely false.
Q11. Correct answer: B
Inference II is easily dealt with. Towards the middle of the passage, the writer tells us that OSD is expensive to diagnose and treat. Then we are told that “A sleep clinic will require an overnight visit costing up to $5,000.” The reference to dollars points to the American connection, but you may feel that the dollar is the currency of many countries than the US. It would be correct to note here that an unspecified reference to the currency dollar must necessarily be taken as a reference to the US dollar (written as $US). Thus inference II is correct, and since it employs the definite ‘has been written,’ it must be taken as probably true, not definitely true
Q12. Correct answer: D
Inference III must be assessed by reference to the stated facts that existing methods of diagnosing and treating ODS can be expensive and that the chin strap method is much less expensive compared to them. Then, if we assume, and correctly so, that common Indians are not well off, the inference that common Indians suffering from OSD may prefer the chin strap treatment over other treatments currently in practice it would certainly begin to sound correct. But inference III says that common Indians suffering from OSD may not prefer the chin strap treatment over other treatments currently in practice. Thus inference III is false, but since it employs the non-definite ‘may not,’ it gains a little strength. It will thus be taken as probably false, not definitely so