SSC CGL 2025 Tier-I · 19 September 2025, Shift 2 · General Intelligence and Reasoning · Question 1 of 100

We transcribed this text from the pictures on a candidate's response sheet for this shift; the answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. Solution last reviewed 13 September 2026.

Where this paper and its answers come from

SSC does not publish CGL question papers or a public answer key. From 2025 the candidate response sheet prints every question and option as a picture, so the text here is transcribed from those pictures for this shift and checked against them independently; where the layout carries meaning, the picture is shown as well. Each answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. SSC released a tentative key for challenge and later its final one, both only to candidates behind a login, and the sheet does not say which of the two it carries. The solutions are written by UnlockIAS.

Consider the following statement and choose the option that follows. Statement: The bank has introduced green bonds to fund eco-friendly projects. Conclusions: I. The bank is supporting sustainable development. II. Green bonds are more profitable than regular bonds.

(a)Only I follow
(b)Only II follow
(c)Both follow
(d)Neither follow

Answer

Why

Correct — A.
Rule: a conclusion follows only if the statement itself supports it, with no outside facts added.

Green bonds here fund eco-friendly projects. A bank funding such projects is supporting sustainable development, so I follows.

The statement says nothing about returns or about regular bonds. II adds a profit comparison from outside, so it does not follow → option (a).

Why the others are wrong

(b)
Only II follow — II compares the profit of green bonds with regular bonds, and the statement gives no figure or comparison. This option also drops I, which the eco-friendly funding supports.
(c)
Both follow — II fails: nothing in the statement speaks to profitability. Both can follow only if the statement supports each conclusion, and it supports I alone.
(d)
Neither follow — 'Neither follow' throws away conclusion I, which the statement supports. Funding eco-friendly projects is a direct form of supporting sustainable development.

Concept

In a statement-and-conclusion item you accept the statement as given and ask of each conclusion: does the statement support it without importing facts?

A conclusion that restates the statement's purpose in broader words follows. Funding eco-friendly projects is supporting sustainable development, said another way.

A conclusion that adds a comparison, number or motive the statement never mentions does not follow, however plausible it sounds.

Conclusion II sounds like finance knowledge, but the item tests only what the statement supports. Whether green bonds really pay more or less is outside the question.

Key facts

A conclusion must be supported by the statement alone, not by general knowledge.
Supporting sustainable development restates the purpose of funding eco-friendly projects.
A comparison with something the statement never mentions, such as regular bonds, does not follow.

Study next

Statement-and-assumption items (what is taken for granted, not what follows)Statement-and-course-of-action itemsSyllogisms built on All and Some statements

Common traps

Accepting a conclusion because it sounds true in real life, such as a claim about bond returns
Rejecting a conclusion because it does not repeat the statement's exact words, when it restates the same idea

21 Sep 2025, 16:00, Reasoning Q.3 works the same way: a company switching to renewable energy supports 'aims to reduce its carbon footprint' but not a claim that its current energy is expensive (keyed Only I).

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.

Topic: Drawing inferences — all 90 SSC CGL questions on it, every solved shift.