Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: The economy grew by 8% this year, the highest in a decade. Conclusions: I. Economic reforms have been successful. II. Growth in previous years was below 8%.

Correct — B.
Rule: a conclusion follows only if the statement alone guarantees it.

II follows: 8% is the highest in a decade, so the other years of that decade grew by less than 8%.

I does not: the statement gives the figure, not its cause. Nothing in it mentions reforms.

Only Conclusion II follows → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only Conclusion I follows — Conclusion I credits reforms, but the statement names no cause for the growth. Linking the two is an addition, not an inference.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Both needs I as well, and I adds a cause the statement never gives. II alone rests on the words the highest in a decade.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — Neither throws out II, yet the highest in a decade means exactly that the other years of the decade were below 8%.

A conclusion must follow from the statement as written. A superlative carries a comparison inside it: the highest in a decade means this year beat every other year in that span.

A cause is different. Saying growth was high does not say why, and many causes would fit the same sentence. A conclusion that names one of them goes beyond the statement.

Key facts

• The highest in a decade means every other year of that decade was lower.
• A statement of a result does not state its cause.
• A conclusion that adds a cause or a prediction goes beyond the statement.

Common traps

• Accepting I because reforms are a familiar explanation for growth
• Rejecting II because the statement does not list the earlier years' figures

No directly related past PYQ was found.