Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: The education ministry has made moral education compulsory in schools. Conclusions: I. Students must attend moral education classes. II. Schools were not offering moral education earlier.

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

I: moral education is now compulsory, and compulsory means students must attend. Follows.

II: a rule making it compulsory says nothing about what schools did earlier. They may already have offered it as an option. Does not follow.

I alone → option (a).

Why the others are wrong

• (b)
  Only Conclusion II follows — Only II accepts a claim about the past that the statement never makes. A new rule can make compulsory what schools already offered as an optional subject.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Both would need II to follow, but the statement is about what is required now, not about what schools offered before.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — Neither throws out I, which restates the statement. If moral education is compulsory, students must attend it.

A conclusion must follow from the statement alone, without outside facts. Read each one and ask: does the statement force this?

I restates the rule in other words: compulsory in schools means attendance for students. II reaches into the past, and a new rule does not tell you whether the subject existed before. A rule can make compulsory what was already offered.

Key facts

• A conclusion follows only when the statement alone guarantees it.
• Compulsory means required of everyone it covers, here students in schools.
• A new rule does not show that what it requires was absent before.

Common traps

• Reading 'made compulsory' as 'newly introduced' and accepting II

No directly related past PYQ was found.