New Enroll here to Join NaBFID Analyst Into Class on May 6

    Question

    A statement is given followed by two conclusions

    numbered I & II. Assuming the statement to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements.   Statements: Australians are strengthened by Pat Cummins' return for the final test after serving a suspension. Cummins was suspended for breaching COVID-19 protocols and missed the third test. However, his absence did not impact Australia’s performance as initially feared.   Conclusions: I. Pat Cummins was suspended for applying saliva to the ball, violating the new playing rules introduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. II. Australians were able to secure a favorable result in the 3rd test match.
    A Only conclusion I follow Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Only conclusion II follow Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Both conclusions I and II follow Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Neither conclusion follows Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    The statement mentions that Pat Cummins was suspended for violating COVID-19 protection norms but does not specify the exact nature of the offense. As a result, Conclusion I cannot be drawn based on the available information.   The latter part of the second sentence states that Cummins' absence did not affect the team's performance as initially feared. This implies that, despite his absence, Australia managed to achieve a favourable result. Therefore, Conclusion II is logical and correct.   Hence, the correct answer is (B).

    Practice Next