Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: All citizens must abide by traffic laws. Conclusion I: Citizens who disobey traffic laws must be punished. Conclusion II: Obeying traffic laws shows civic responsibility.

Correct — C.
Rule: a conclusion follows when the statement reasonably supports it, not only when it spells it out.

I: must abide makes traffic laws binding on every citizen. The key reads a binding rule as one whose breach calls for a penalty, so I follows.

II: obeying laws that every citizen must follow is doing a citizen's duty, which the key reads as civic responsibility. II follows.

Both → option (c).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only I — Only I drops II. The key reads obeying laws that every citizen must follow as a citizen doing their duty, which is what civic responsibility means.
• (b)
  Only II — Only II drops I. The key takes 'must abide' as a binding rule whose breach calls for a penalty, so I is accepted too.
• (d)
  Neither follows — Neither follows would demand that the statement spell out punishment and civic responsibility. The key accepts conclusions the statement reasonably supports, and 'must abide' supports both.

Statement–conclusion items ask what the statement supports, not what it states word for word. A conclusion fails when it adds something the statement cannot carry, such as 'all', 'only' or an unrelated cause.

Here the statement is a rule: all citizens must abide by traffic laws. The key reads a rule of that force as carrying two things with it, a penalty for breaking it and a duty in keeping it.

Key facts

• 'Must' in a statement expresses an obligation.
• Check each conclusion for an overreach the statement cannot carry: a new group, an unrelated cause, or a stronger word such as 'all' or 'only'.

Common traps

• Rejecting a conclusion only because its exact words are not in the statement, when the key asks what the statement supports

No directly related past PYQ was found.