Statements and Inferences MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Statements and Inferences - Download Free PDF

We take a look at the given statements as follows:

A) Maximum number of people are old people who do not know how to use technology. They do not want to take discount and want to book slot on the same day. → Majority of the old age people and technologically challenged. So, online slot booking might be a hindrance for them. Hence, this might be a reason as to why people might not avail the offer. 

B) Company did not pay much attention towards advertisement by thinking that it will automatically reach out to consumers. → Poor advertisement may lead to less awareness about the offer among their customers. Hence, this might be a reason as to why people might not avail the offer. 

C) People are rich and they want to pay more. → We cannot for certainly say that rich people would like to pay more and not avail the offer. Hence, this might not be a reason as to why people might not avail the offer. 

Therefore, only C might not have been a reason why people not use and avail discount given by the hospital.

Hence, only C might not have been a reason. 

We take a look at the given statements as follows:

A) Company will focus on less on making other costlier product. → There is no need for the company to do so. There is nowhere mentioned that it is incurring losses or so. Hence, this cannot be inferred from the given passage. 

B) People of that city like to purchase the customized set of furniture of company X. → Since, 70 percent of its sales come from that particular city alone, so it is safe to say that the people of that particular state prefer buying furniture from Company X. Hence, this can be inferred from the given passage. 

C) People would not buy furniture because prices are very high. → The price might not be a factor for a lot of people and they might opt for the quality of product they are being given. Hence, this cannot be inferred from the given passage. 

D) Company X is using best quality material. → We aren't told anything about the material that Company X or any other company is using. Hence, this cannot be inferred from the given passage. 

Therefore, only statement B can be inferred from the given passage. 

Hence, only statement B can be inferred.

We take a look at the given statements as follows:

A) Sweet shop can't make more profit by customizing sweets. → As they are customizing sweets, so there will always be a decent possibility of a certain portion of sweets being wasted. This wastage will lead to a net loss. Hence, we can infer this from the given passage.

B) Their market demand will increase by doing this. → If this would have been the case, then there would have been no doubts in the minds of the sweet shop owner. Due to the demand, the shop would have always stayed in profit. Hence, this cannot be inferred from the passage. 

C) All of their sweets will sell out in one day. → There is no guarantee that this would happen as their sweets would have been customized and all customers might not want customized sweets. Some might want regular sweets as well. Hence, this cannot be inferred from the passage. 

Therefore, only statement A can be inferred from the given passage. 

Hence, only statement A can be inferred. 

The statement suggests that failure gives a sense of clarity, teaches how to take a better path to reach where one wants to.

From what is supplied we can deduce that failure facilitates in finding the right direction. It is a stepping stone towards one's goal. So inference I follows.

But, from what is given it cannot be inferred that those who never fail are perpetually lost. It is too generalized and therefore, inference II does not follow.

Hence, Option 1 is correct.

According to the given passage:

I) More than two-thirds of the global population actively uses social media. → Cannot be inferred

Two-thirds of the global population would be approximately 66.7%. However, the passage states 62.3% of people use social media, which is less than two-thirds. This means the statement exaggerates the user percentage and cannot be inferred.

II) Users typically engage with fewer than five platforms monthly. → Cannot be inferred

The passage states that the average user engages with 6.6 platforms per month, which is more than five, not fewer. Since the statement directly contradicts the given data, it cannot be inferred.

III) Each social media user spends over two hours daily on these platforms. → Can be inferred

The passage explicitly states that the average user spends 2 hours and 20 minutes daily on social media. Since 2 hours and 20 minutes is more than two hours, this statement is directly supported by the passage and can be inferred.

IV) All major social media platforms have over 2 billion users. → Cannot be inferred

The passage mentions that Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram have more than 2 billion users, but it does not confirm that all major platforms meet this criterion. Other major platforms might have fewer than 2 billion users, so this statement cannot be inferred.

V) The use of social media as a marketing tool by companies is declining. → Cannot be inferred

The passage states that 77% of businesses use social media for marketing, showing that reliance has actually increased rather than decreased. This contradicts the statement, so it cannot be inferred.

Thus, Only III can be inferred from the given information.

Hence, "Option 3" is the correct answer.

The correct answer is option 4. None of the inference follows.

The statement claims that if the administration of America were truly focused on restarting the economy it should have also supported the adoption of measures to check the spread of infection bigtime. This means support is feeble but does not imply that the administration has failed in doing so. Failed is a very strong word.

Therefore, inference I does not follow.

The statement talks about being truly focussed and therefore an extreme conclusion cannot be reached that they are "only" concerned about the economy.

Therefore, inference II does not follow.

The correct answer is option 2. Only inference II follows.

The statement highlights the difference in the functionality of humans and computers but there is no comparison made. It does not imply that humans are inferior and computers are advanced.

Therefore, inference I does not follow.

But it can be inferred from the statement that Humans function in a manner different from that of computers.

Therefore, inference II follows.

Hence, Only inference II follows.

The statement says that Spirituality helps you lead a blissful life. But it does not claim that Spirituality is the only way you can lead a blissful life. Therefore, Inference I does not follow.

Peace of mind is necessary to lead a blissful life and hence Inference II is a valid inference.

Hence Inference II follows.

Thus, only Inference II follows.

The statement given above is not sufficient for us to infer the profession of Gunjan’s parents.
Just because she is a brilliant actress, it is not necessary for her parents to be in the same profession.
Therefore, inference I does not follows.

Similarly, working in Hollywood movies is not a parameter to judge whether Gunjan is a brilliant actress or not.
Therefore, inference II does not follow.

Hence, None of the inference follows.

According to the question: 
Mangroves → fungi/bacteria → worms/crustacenas → small fish →  large fish →  crocodile
It means that mangroves are an essential part of some of the coastal food chains as it is not found everywhere. Mangroves are found mainly between latitudes 25 °N and 25 °S. Though, there is no such thing with marine life as 70% of the earth surface is covered with water.

Hence, mangroves have a crucial role in some of the coastal food chains.

Solution:

Let's evaluate each argument:

Argument I: No, smartphones are addictive, they reduce study time and play time.
This argument highlights potential negative consequences of allowing children to use smartphones, such as addiction and reduced time for studying and playing. It addresses concerns about the impact of smartphone usage on children's well-being and development. Therefore, this argument is strong.

Argument II: Yes, the future is about technology. The sooner the children learn how to use technology the better for their and society's future.
This argument emphasizes the importance of technology in shaping the future and suggests that early exposure to technology is beneficial for children and society. While it presents a perspective on the value of technology, it does not directly address the potential negative effects or concerns associated with children using smartphones, such as addiction or reduced study time. Therefore, this argument is relatively weaker compared to the first one.

Considering the above analysis, the correct answer is:

If only argument I is strong.

Hence, the correct answer is "Option 3".

Statement 1 is saying-->Today, the stock market index has reached lower than the lowest during the last 3 years.

So, It means that if we know the last 3 years data, then we can make an overall assessment of the present level of stock market index today.

Statement 2 is saying-->During the last year, the index fluctuated between 30,360 and 28,255.

So, there is range given in the statement of the last year by which we can assess that index fluctuated between 30,360 and 28,255, but no data provided to find today's market index.

Statement 3 is saying-->The stock market index touched a low of 27,125 in the preceding 3 years.

So, in this statement, we can find that the lowest value in the last 3 years was 27,125.

So, If we combine statements 1 and 3, we can say that today's market was lower than 27,125, so statement 2 is not giving any help to find today's market index. So here we can say both statements 1 and 3 are sufficient to answer this question.

Hence, the correct option is 2.

None of the inferences follow as they are not inferences but courses of actions that should be taken in the situation expressed in the statement. 

From the statement above, we can infer that different varieties of spring flowers are available in the market as tulips is one of the most used flowers in bouquets.
Therefore, inference I follows.

On the other hand, the information provided in the statement is not sufficient enough for us to infer that Tulips are part of the lily family.
Therefore, inference II does not follows.

Hence, Only inference I follows.

Option 2 is the correct answer. The statement is talking about only cotton farmers. In this context, anything about other farmers cannot be considered as there is no information given about that. Hence, the inference I don't follow. Inference II follows here because an evident relationship is established between cotton and the lack of rains.