Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: The government has announced a reduction in LPG subsidies. Conclusions: I. Citizens will now have to pay more for LPG. II. The government has no money left.

Correct — A.
Rule: a conclusion follows if the statement, with common knowledge, makes it true without extra assumptions.

I: a subsidy is the share of the price the government pays. Cut it, and that share moves to the buyer, so citizens pay more. I follows.

II: no money left is a sweeping claim, and the statement gives no reason for the cut. II does not follow.

Only Conclusion I follows → option (a).

Why the others are wrong

• (b)
  Only Conclusion II follows — Only II keeps the conclusion that overreaches. The statement never says why subsidies were cut, let alone that the government has no money left.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Both would need II to follow. The statement gives no reason for the cut, so no money left is a guess, not a conclusion.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — Neither throws away I, which comes straight from what a subsidy is: less support from the government means a higher price for the buyer.

Test each conclusion against the statement alone, adding only common knowledge. A conclusion that is the direct result of the statement follows. One that needs facts the statement never gives does not.

Absolute wording such as no money left is a warning sign: check whether the statement supports the claim in full. Here it gives no reason for the cut at all.

Key facts

• A subsidy is the part of a price paid by the government, not the buyer.
• Reducing a subsidy raises what the buyer pays, other things being equal.
• An absolute claim follows only if the statement supports it in full.

Common traps

• Accepting II because a subsidy cut sounds like a sign of money trouble
• Rejecting I because the statement does not mention prices

No directly related past PYQ was found.