Directions A statement is given followed by two inferences I and II You have to consider the stateme...........

Logical Reasoning(IBPS CL) Statement and Infrence

Directions: A statement is given followed by two inferences I and II. You have to consider the statement to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given inferences, if any, follow from the given statement.

Statement:

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force (IAF) to review and change its protocols dealing with issues of stress and substance abuse in the force, saying its systems have to be in tune with the law. The direction by a bench of justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel was issued as it disapproved of the manner in which the IAF had kept a 30-year-old corporal confined in a hospital’s psychiatric ward as he was an alcoholic. Which of the following can be logically inferred from the statement above?

Inferences:

I. Delhi High Court wants to make sure the IAF does not think that it is above the law and enjoyed complete impunity.

II. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed about a 30-year-old who was being confined at the Army Hospital.

This questions was previously asked in

IBPS Clerk Mains (28 Feb, 2021 Shift 1)

View All IBPSCl Previous Year Papers

Only I follows

Only II follows

Both I and II follows

Either I or II follows

Neither I nor II follows

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Statement and Infrence

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Let’s break down the statement and see what actually follows:

- Statement Recap:

The Delhi High Court asked the IAF to update its rules about stress and substance abuse, saying everything should be legal. This came up because the court didn't like that the IAF kept an alcoholic corporal locked up in a psychiatric ward.

- Inference I:

“Delhi High Court wants to make sure the IAF does not think that it is above the law and enjoyed complete impunity.”

- That’s a bit of an interpretation. The court did say rules should be in sync with the law, but it doesn’t directly say the IAF thinks it’s above the law.

- This is more an assumption about motive—maybe true, but not a necessary inference.

- Inference II:

“The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed about a 30-year-old who was being confined at the Army Hospital.”

- The statement specifically mentions the court’s reaction to a 30-year-old corporal being confined because of alcoholism. “Habeas corpus” just means the court was asked if that confinement was legal.

- This directly lines up with the facts given. So, yes, this one clearly follows.

- Options Overview:

- 1: Only I follows — We’ve just seen that I is a stretch.

- 2: Only II follows — II is factually grounded.

- 3: Both I and II follow — I doesn’t really follow.

- 4: Either I or II follows — Not possible, because only II follows.

- 5: Neither I nor II follows — Definitely not right.

Correct Answer:

Option 2: Only II follows