Explanation:
I follows from the general rule 'all birds have wings' applied to penguins. II is a fallacy; having wings doesn't make a bat a bird. Only I follows.
Explanation:
When there are two negative statements, no definitive positive or negative relationship can be established between the subject of the first and the predicate of the second (cat and rat). Since I and II form a complementary pair covering all possibilities, either I or II must be true.
Statement:
Quality has a price tag. India is allocating plenty of funds to education.
Conclusions:
I. Quality of education in India would improve.
II. Funding alone can enhance the quality of education.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
The statement sets up a correlation between price (funds) and quality. If India is allocating funds to education, it logically follows that the intended quality would improve (I). However, the statement doesn't claim funding *alone* is sufficient without proper execution (II does not follow).
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!