send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Direction: In the question below are given three statements followed by three conclusions I, II and III. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts, Read all the given conclusions and then decide which of the following conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.
Statements:
Some Poles are not Stops.
Some Signals are not Poles.
Some Stops are not Signals.
Conclusions:
I. Some Poles are definitely not Signals.
II. Some Signals are not Poles.
III. All Poles being Signals is a possibility.
Only I follows
Only II follows
Only III follows
All Follows
None of these
Let’s break this down one step at a time.
- Some Poles are not Stops.
? There exist some Poles that are NOT Stops.
- Some Signals are not Poles.
? There exist some Signals that are NOT Poles.
- Some Stops are not Signals.
? There exist some Stops that are NOT Signals.
Now, let’s look at the conclusions:
- I. Some Poles are definitely not Signals.
- We’re never told about a direct relationship from Poles to Signals. We only know some Signals aren’t Poles, and some Poles aren’t Stops. But this doesn’t guarantee that any Pole isn’t a Signal.
- So, this one doesn’t necessarily follow.
- II. Some Signals are not Poles.
- This is word-for-word one of the statements. So, this is definitely true.
- III. All Poles being Signals is a possibility.
- We’re told “Some Signals are not Poles,” so Signals can exist outside Poles, but we’re NOT told that all Poles can’t be Signals. So, yes—all Poles could theoretically be Signals; nothing contradicts that.
Let’s check your options:
- Option 1 (Only I follows): Not correct.
- Option 2 (Only II follows): This statement (II) *does* follow, but so does III, so this isn’t a complete answer.
- Option 3 (Only III follows): This is wrong, because II also directly follows from the statements.
- Option 4 (All Follows): Not correct, because I doesn't follow.
- Option 5 (None of these): Not correct.
Here’s what this means:
- The correct option is Option 2: Only II follows.
By: Parvesh Mehta ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses