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 four statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: Only few colours are paints. Only a few paints are walls. No wall is circle. Conclusions: I: Some circles are paints. II: No colour being wall is a possibility.Solution
Only a few paints are walls (I) + No wall is circle (E) → Some paints are not circle (O). Hence conclusion I does not follow. Only few colours are paints (I) + Only a few paints are walls (I) → Probable conclusion → No colour may be wall (E). Hence conclusion II follows.
Which of the following is correct about altering the boundaries of any State?
Which of the following taxes is considered indirect?
A suit for possession of an immovable property, under section 6 of Specific Relief Act can be filed within__________ of dispossession
In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must:
When the right of private defense of property extends to causing death:
Section 21 of the specific relief Act is related to:
Every chairman of the Board of directors who is appointed on a whole-time basis and every managing director of a banking company shall be in the whole -...
According to SEBI(DP) Regulations, 2018 the voting on a resolution in the meeting of the governing board shall be valid only
The Advocate-General for the State is appointed by __________________
Any person aggrieved by an order ¬¬¬_________________ may prefer an appeal to a Securities Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.
...