Statement: All mangoes are golden in color. No golden-colored things are cheap.Conclusion I: All mangoes are cheap.Conclusion II: Golden-colored mangoes are not cheap.

Answer: Only II follows. Since no golden things are cheap and all mangoes are golden, it follows logically that mangoes are not cheap. Conclusion I contradicts this. Conclusion II is a valid deduction.

Statement: The government has increased the bus fare by 10% from next month.Conclusion I: People may stop using buses from next month.Conclusion II: The revenue of the bus transport corporation may increase.

Answer: Only II follows. Conclusion I is an extreme reaction ('stop using') which is unlikely. Conclusion II is the probable intended result of the fare hike, making it a valid conclusion.

Statement: Irregularity is the cause of failure in exams. Some regular students fail in exams.Conclusion I: All failed students are regular.Conclusion II: All successful students are not regular.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. The statement says irregularity causes failure, and mere 'some' regular students fail. It doesn't imply 'all' failed are regular (I) or anything definitive about successful students (II).

Statement: Morning walks are good for health.Conclusion I: All healthy people go for morning walks.Conclusion II: Evening walks are harmful.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Statement praises morning walks, but doesn't make it a necessary condition for ALL healthy people (I). It also doesn't compare with evening walks (II).

Statement: Only good singers are invited to the conference. No one without a sweet voice is a good singer.Conclusion I: All invited singers have a sweet voice.Conclusion II: Those who do not have a sweet voice are not invited.

Answer: Both I and II follow. Invited -> Good Singer -> Sweet Voice. So, Invited -> Sweet Voice (I). No Sweet Voice -> No Good Singer -> Not Invited (II). Both follow logically.

Statement: If you work hard, you will succeed. A worked hard.Conclusion I: A will succeed.Conclusion II: Hard work is the only key to success.

Answer: Only I follows. Statement guarantees success for hard work, so A succeeds (I). It doesn't say 'only' hard work leads to success (II).

Statement: Most of the students in the class are intelligent.Conclusion I: Some students are not intelligent.Conclusion II: All students are intelligent.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. 'Most' implies more than half, but not necessarily 'all' or 'not all'. It leaves the status of the remaining students unknown. However, standard logic treats 'Most' as 'Not All' in specific contexts, but strictly speaking, we cannot conclude definitely that there ARE unintelligent students (could be all are, but we only know about most). Standard answer key logic often accepts I, but strictly, neither follows definitely from 'Most'. Wait, correct logic: 'Most' means 50%. It doesn't restrict the others. However, in common parlance 'Most' contrasts with 'All'. Let's stick to strict logic: 'Most' does not strictly imply 'Some are not'. But 'Most' definitely contradicts II. Let's provide standard exam answer: I follows.

Statement: Jade plant has thick leaves and it requires little water.Conclusion I: All plants with thick leaves require little water.Conclusion II: Jade plant may be grown in places where water is scarce.

Answer: Only II follows. The statement is specific to Jade plant, cannot generalize to 'All plants' (I). Since it requires little water, it is suitable for water-scarce areas (II).

Statement: Vegetable prices are soaring in the market.Conclusion I: Vegetables are becoming a rare commodity.Conclusion II: People cannot eat vegetables.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Price rise doesn't mean rarity (could be inflation, transport costs) (I). People can still eat, maybe less or pay more (II). Neither is definitely true.

Statement: This book 'Z' is the only book which focuses on the problem of poverty in India between 1950 and 1980.Conclusion I: There was no question of poverty before 1950.Conclusion II: No other book deals with poverty in India during 1950 to 1980.

Answer: Only II follows. The focus is only on the period 1950-1980, implying nothing about pre-1950 (I). The word 'only' in the statement directly supports II.

Statement: All the organized persons find time for rest. Sunita, keeping her heavy schedule, finds time for rest.Conclusion I: Sunita is an organized person.Conclusion II: Sunita is an industrious person.

Answer: Only II follows. Statement says 'All organized find rest', NOT 'All who find rest are organized'. So Sunita finding rest doesn't necessarily make her organized (I). But keeping a 'heavy schedule' implies she is industrious (II). Wait, does 'heavy schedule' strictly mean industrious? In logic questions, adjectives like 'industrious' are traits inferred from descriptors like 'heavy schedule'. However, strict logic says: Finding rest is property of organized. Sunita finds rest. Sunita COULD be organized. But is it definite? No (Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent). Is she industrious? 'Heavy schedule' suggests it. Let's re-read carefully. Actually, standard key says I follows. But logically it is flawed. However, often 'finds time for rest' is treated as the defining characteristic. Let's look at II. 'Industrious' is not defined. Let's stick to the most logical path: The statement doesn't support I (Converse error). II depends on interpretation of 'heavy schedule'. Let's pick a clearer question or stick to standard reasoning conventions where 'heavy schedule' -> 'industrious' might be a stretch. Let's change the Correct Answer to C (Neither) for strict logic, or A if we assume the statement implies 'Only organized persons...'. The statement is 'All organized...', not 'Only'. So I is definitely invalid. II is also not strictly supported. C is best.

Statement: The world population is increasing exponentially, leading to a shortage of resources.Conclusion I: The standard of living will go down.Conclusion II: The population needs to be controlled.

Answer: Both I and II follow. Shortage of resources with increasing population logically leads to a lower standard of living (I). To solve the problem stated (shortage), controlling the cause (population) is a logical course of action/conclusion (II).

Statement: Company X has a record of manufacturing cameras of quality and latest design so that you do not spoil even a single shot.Conclusion I: No other company manufactures cameras of such quality.Conclusion II: People want to take good quality shots.

Answer: Only II follows. The statement praises Company X but doesn't exclude others (I). The feature 'do not spoil even a single shot' addresses a user need, implying users want good shots (II).

Statement: Determine the quality of the product by checking the ISI mark.Conclusion I: No other mark ensures quality.Conclusion II: ISI mark ensures quality.

Answer: Only II follows. The statement advises checking ISI for quality, implying ISI ensures it (II). It doesn't say ISI is the *only* way, so I doesn't follow.

Statement: The essence of Vishwa Dharma is that 'God is one, but sages call Him by different names'.Conclusion I: God is same for all.Conclusion II: Sages are different.

Answer: Only I follows. 'God is one' implies universality (I). 'Sages are different' is literal but the point of the statement is about the unity of God, not the diversity of sages. The name calling is the action, not the nature of sages. However, most exams consider I as the core message.

Statement: Sick people need medicine.Conclusion I: Healthy people do not need medicine.Conclusion II: People keep medicine in their home.

Answer: Only I follows. Though 'Healthy people do not need medicine' seems logically inverse, strictly speaking, 'Sick need X' doesn't mean 'Not Sick don't need X' (e.g. vitamins). However, in the context of 'medicine as a cure', I is often accepted. But strictly? No. Let's look at II. Storage isn't mentioned. C is the safest, strictest logical answer. But some exams mark A. We will stick to strict logic: C.

Statement: No country has achieved zero poverty. Developing countries have high poverty rates.Conclusion I: Developed countries have low poverty rates.Conclusion II: Poverty can never be eliminated.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Statement mentions developing countries have *high* rates. It doesn't explicitly say all non-developing (developed) have *low* rates (could be medium). 'Zero poverty' achievement is a fact stated, but 'can never' is a future prediction/impossibility not supported. So C.

Statement: The manager humiliated Sachin in the presence of his colleagues.Conclusion I: The manager did not like Sachin.Conclusion II: Sachin was not popular with his colleagues.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Humiliation could be due to a specific error, not necessarily dislike (I). Colleagues' popularity is unrelated to the manager's action (II). Neither follows definitely.

Statement: Use 'R' brand computer to increase your efficiency.Conclusion I: Using 'R' brand computer will improve your performance.Conclusion II: Other computers do not increase efficiency.

Answer: Only I follows. Efficiency effectively assumes performance improvement (I). The ad promotes 'R' but doesn't technically claim others *don't* work (II), just that 'R' *does*.

Statement: Double your money in 5 months. - An advertisement.Conclusion I: The assurance is not genuine.Conclusion II: People want their money to grow.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. We cannot conclude it's fake just from the text (I) - that's an assumption/judgment. We also can't strictly conclude people *want* it just because it's offered (though it's a valid *assumption* for the advertiser, it's not a *conclusion* derivable from the text 'Double your money...'). Wait, is II a conclusion? 'People want money to grow' is why the ad exists. But strictly, the statement is just the offer. This is tricky. In 'Assumptions', II is valid. In 'Conclusions', it is extrinsic. Let's mark C.

Statement: All the research scholars are sociologists. Some sociologists are professors.Conclusion I: All research scholars are professors.Conclusion II: Some research scholars are professors.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. RS (Research Scholars) -> S (Sociologists). Some S -> P (Professors). The 'Some' overlap between S and P might be outside the RS circle. Thus, no direct relation between RS and P is guaranteed. Neither follows.

Statement: In a one-day cricket match, the total runs made by a team were 200. Out of these 160 runs were made by spinners.Conclusion I: 80% of the team consists of spinners.Conclusion II: The opening batsmen were spinners.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Spinnners made 80% of runs, doesn't mean they are 80% of the team (could be 2 spinners scoring all) (I). We don't know who opened (II). Neither follows.

Statement: The Prime Minister cautioned the people that the government would not bear the cost of the damages caused by the protesters.Conclusion I: The government used to bear the cost of such damages earlier.Conclusion II: The government wants to deter people from protesting.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. We don't know past policy from this statement (I). The warning is about cost, not about banning protests per se, though deterrence might be an intent, strict conclusion on 'wants to deter protesting' (the right) vs 'deter damages' is ambiguous. Safest is Neither.

Statement: Fortune favors the brave.Conclusion I: Risks are necessary for success.Conclusion II: Cowards die many times before their death.

Answer: Only I follows. 'Brave' implies taking risks. 'Fortune favors' implies success matches those who take risks. So I is a valid derivation. II is a proverb but not derived from the given statement.

Statement: The standard of education in private schools is much better than municipal schools.Conclusion I: Municipal schools should be closed.Conclusion II: Efforts should be made to improve municipal schools.

Answer: Only II follows. Closing schools (I) is an extreme step not suggested by 'better standard'. Improving the weaker one (II) is a logical course of action/conclusion derived from the comparison.

Statement: Domestic demand has been increasing faster than the production of wheat.Conclusion I: Domestic demand must be reduced.Conclusion II: We must export wheat.

Answer: Neither I nor II follows. Reducing demand (I) is not a solution (people need food). Exporting (II) causes shortage if demand > production. We need to *import*. So neither follows.

Statement: Only students of the science stream can participate in the quiz.Conclusion I: No student from the arts stream can participate.Conclusion II: Ram is a science student, so he can participate.

Answer: Both I and II follow. 'Only Science' means Non-Science cannot participate. Arts is Non-Science, so I follows. Ram is Science, satisfying the condition, so II follows.

Statement: Good voice is a natural gift but one has to keep practicing to improve and excel in the field of music.Conclusion I: Natural gifts need nurturing and care.Conclusion II: Even though one's voice is not good, one can keep practicing.

Answer: Only I follows. The statement says practice (nurturing) is needed for the natural gift (good voice) to excel. So I follows. II talks about those without good voice, which the statement doesn't address (it focuses on those *with* the gift who need practice).

Statement: The T.V. programs, telecast specially for women, are packed with a variety of recipes and household hints. A major portion of magazines for women also contains the items mentioned above.Conclusion I: Women are not interested in other things.Conclusion II: An average woman's primary interest lies in home and particularly in the kitchen.

Answer: Only II follows. I is too extreme ('not interested'). II is a logical deduction based on the content targeting them (media caters to implied interests). While this is a stereotype, in the context of the logical statement provided, II follows as the rationale for the content mix.

Statement: Sealed tenders are invited from competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.Conclusion I: Tenders are invited only from experienced contractors.Conclusion II: It is difficult to find competent tenderers in construction jobs.

Answer: Only I follows. The statement explicitly asks for experienced contractors, making experience a mandatory condition (I). No information about difficulty in finding them (II).

Home/Rajasthan 4th Grade Exam/Reasoning Ability/

Statement & Conclusion

Master this topic with zero to advance depth.

Expert Answer & Key Takeaways

Mastering Statement & Conclusion is essential for high-fidelity technical architecture and senior engineering roles in 2026.

Introduction

In this logical reasoning topic, a statement is given followed by two conclusions. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then consider the two conclusions together and decide which of them logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the information given in the statement.

Rules for Valid Conclusions

Strict Adherence: The conclusion must be 100% derivable from the statement alone. Do not use outside knowledge unless it is a universal truth.
2. No Assumptions: A conclusion is a result, not an assumption. Do not assume intent unless stated.
3. Keywords: Identify keywords like 'all', 'some', 'none', 'always', 'never'. Extreme words ('always', 'never', 'all') often make a conclusion invalid unless explicitly supported.

Common Patterns

Cause and Effect: If the statement describes a cause, the conclusion might describe the immediate effect.
Advice/Result: If the statement is an advice or warning, the conclusion relates to its purpose or consequence.

Course4All Reasoning Panel

Verified Expert

Aptitude & Logical Reasoning Experts

Specializing in banking and administrative exam patterns, our panel ensures every logical trick is simplified for students.

Pattern: 2026 Ready

Updated: Weekly

← Previous TopicStatement & Assumptions

Next Topic →Course of Action

Found an issue or have a suggestion?

Help us improve! Report bugs or suggest new features on our Telegram group.

Statement & Conclusion

Expert Answer & Key Takeaways

Introduction

Rules for Valid Conclusions

Common Patterns

Course4All Reasoning Panel

Explore More Reasoning Ability

Course of Action

Statement & Arguments

Cause & Effect

Mirror & Water Images

Found an issue or have a suggestion?