Direction Read the following information carefully and answer the questions given below The Delhi Hi...........

Logical Reasoning(SBI-PO) Statement and Infrence

Direction : Read the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.

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?

Delhi High Court wants to make sure the IAF does not think that the Mental Health Act does not apply to it. There cannot be such a casual exercise that you can keep a person hospitalised for as long as you want.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the corporal's family, claiming their son was being illegally confined at the Army Base Hospital.

The court asked the IAF to deposit in court one complete copy of the Corporal's medical record by July 16 and listed the matter for further hearing on August 17

Central government standing counsel Ripudaman Singh Bhardwaj, appearing for the IAF, said the air force acted with bona fide intention in the instant matter. However, the court refused to accept the argument.

None can be inferred

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Statement and Infrence

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

The correct answer is option 2, i.e. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the corporal's father, claiming his son was being illegally confined at the Army Base Hospital.
Both options 3 and 4 can be rejected on first reading as they introduce an independent idea and we cannot deduce anything that is not mentioned thus, options 3 and 4 can be rejected. Option 1 can also be eliminated as we cannot predict the motive of the court with surety (mentioned as ‘Court wants to make sure’). Since, no such information is evident from the statement, we can reject it. Option 2 makes a generalization that the court was hearing a petition filed by the corporal's family (hint: last sentence of the given statement). It is a perfect deduction that can be made based on the given information as it does not introduces any new idea nor violates any piece of information stated. Based on the above conclusions we can reject
options 1, 3, 4 and 5 and thus, the most appropriate answer is option 2.