Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: Government vehicles are instructed to avoid using sirens except during emergencies. Conclusions: I. Sirens are often used unnecessarily. II. This will help reduce noise pollution.
- (a)Only Conclusion I follows
- (b)Only Conclusion II follows
- (c)Both I and II follow
- (d)Neither I nor II follows
Answer
Why
Correct — C.
Rule: a conclusion follows when the statement itself supports it.
Conclusion I: an order to avoid sirens except in emergencies implies sirens were being used outside emergencies. That is the problem the order fixes.
Conclusion II: fewer sirens means less noise, so the order will help reduce noise pollution. That is its direct effect.
Both follow → option (c).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Only Conclusion I follows — Only I leaves out the order's direct effect. Sirens sounded only in emergencies make less noise overall, so Conclusion II follows too.
- (b)Only Conclusion II follows — Only II leaves out the order's reason. An instruction to stop non-emergency siren use implies such use was happening, which is what Conclusion I says.
- (d)Neither I nor II follows — Neither suits conclusions that need outside facts. Both here come from the order itself: I is its reason, II is its effect.
Concept
A statement–conclusion item asks what the statement itself supports, not what you know from outside. A conclusion that needs extra facts fails.
An instruction to avoid something 'except during emergencies' carries two things with it: the problem it answers (sirens sounded when there is no emergency) and the result it aims at (less siren noise). Conclusions I and II are exactly those two.
Often is the word to weigh in Conclusion I. The statement shows non-emergency use is common enough to need an order, and the key reads that as 'often'.
Compare Reasoning Q.13 in this shift, keyed Only Conclusion I: 'All oil consumed in India is imported' fails there because all claims more than its statement gives.
Key facts
- A conclusion must rest on the statement alone, not on outside knowledge.
- An order to avoid X except in emergencies implies X was happening outside emergencies.
- A conclusion that adds a sweeping word such as all or never goes beyond what the statement gives.
Study next
Common traps
- Rejecting Conclusion I because the statement never uses the word 'misuse', when the order itself implies it
- Rejecting Conclusion II as outside knowledge, when less noise is the direct effect of fewer sirens
18 Sep 2025, 12:30, Reasoning Q.12 is keyed Both I and II follow on the same logic: a library closed on Sunday for renovation implies both that the renovation is planned for Sunday and that people cannot use it that day.
17 Sep 2025, 16:00, Reasoning Q.11 shows the other side: higher import duty makes imported luxury cars dearer, but 'Local car manufacturers will stop making budget cars' does not follow.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.