Direction Two statements are followed by three conclusions I II and III You have to consider the sta...........

Logical Reasoning(SBI-PO) Statement - Conclusions

Direction: Two statements are followed by three conclusions I, II and III. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn from the given statements and indicate your answer accordingly.

Statements:

I. The world’s largest bee — a giant insect roughly the size of a human thumb — has been rediscovered in a remote part of Indonesia in its first sighting in nearly 40 years, researchers said.

II. Despite its conspicuous size, no one had observed Wallace’s giant bee — discovered in the 19th century by British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace.

Conclusions:

I. Several previous expeditions to the region where the bee lives failed to spot it.

II. Indonesia is home to an abundant variety of flora and fauna but there are fears for some animal and insect communities as forests being cut down for agriculture threaten many species’ natural habitat.

III. The bee which lives in the Indonesian island region of North Moluccas, makes its nest in termite mounds, using its large fang-like mandibles to collect sticky resin to protect its home from the termites.

Only conclusion I follows

Both conclusions II and III follow

Only conclusion III follows

Only conclusion II follows

Both conclusions I and II follow

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Statement - Conclusions

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

The correct answer is option 1, i.e. Only conclusion I follows.
In this type of question, conclusion is not specifically mentioned. It needs to be deduced from the given statements.
From both the statements, we infer that the world’s largest bee which is roughly the size of a human thumb has been rediscovered in a remote part of Indonesia. And despite of its conspicuous size, no one had observed Wallace’s giant bee which was discovered in the 19th century by British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace.
Conclusion 1 is evident from the information stated in the second statement which states that ‘despite of its (bee’s) conspicuous size, no one had observed Wallace’s giant bee’. Thus, it can be concluded that previous expeditions failed to spot it.
Conclusion 2 is irrelevant as the idea of forests being cut down for agriculture in Indonesia is not supported by the information stated in the given context.
Conclusion 3 is also rejected as the specific location where the bee can be traced, and its large fang-like mandibles is not mentioned in both the statements.
As only conclusion I follows the direction of the given statements thus, the most correct answer choice is option A and rest of the options can be rejected.