Question
In the question below there are three statements
followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to take the three given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the three statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: Only a few Chair is Wall. No Wall is Table. Only a few Table is Board. Conclusion: I. All Board being Wall is a possibility. II. Some Table is not Chair.Solution
No Wall is Table(E) + Only a few Table is Board (I) → Some Board are not Wall (O*) → Probable conclusion → All Wall may be Wall(A). Hence conclusion I does not follow. Only a few Chair is Wall (I) + No Wall is Table(E) → Some Chair are not Table(O). Hence conclusion II does not follow.
The law of limitation runs from the:
To constitute a tort, there must be:
The Fast Track CIRP completion period can be extended by a resolution passed at a meeting of the committee of creditors and supported by______________
"Decree" includes:
The Court may compel the attendance of a person by imposing a fine of not more than-
An offer and acceptance to it must be in the :
Which of the following cannot be qualified to be a Judicial Member of SAT?
When there are 3 conciliators they act_______ as laid down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Who may establish additional trading floor?
When cases are instituted otherwise than on police report and the Magistrate shall discharge the accused if
Relevant for Exams:
