XAT 2014 — VARC Question 2
Read the definitions below and select the best match between the numbered sentences and the definitions.
Premise: A proposition from which another statement is inferred or follows a conclusion.
Assumption: Something, which is accepted as true.
Facts: Something, which can be checked.
Reason: A cause, explanation or justification for an action or event.
Conclusion: An end, finish or summarization of process or argument.
Proposition: A statement that expresses judgment or opinion.
Question: A sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit opinion.
Inductive inference: An end, finish or summarization reached for “the whole”, based on “a particular” real incidence.
Deductive Inference: An end, finish or summarization reached based on the combining and recombining two or more than two assumptions.
The fatal consequences of having a routine mid-day meal for at least twenty two children in Bihar’s Saran district expose the chronic neglect of school education in a large part of India (1). The governments cannot find a small piece of land for a school and are unable to store food materials without the risk of contamination is a telling commentary on their commitment to universal primary education (2). The Bihar horror clearly points to the absence of strong normative procedures for the provision of infrastructure, even for a new school (3).
The best match would be:
Answer & solution
- A
1–Fact, 2–Reason, 3–Deductive Inference
- B
1–Reason, 2–Reason, 3–Inductive Inference
- C
1–Inductive Inference, 2–Fact, 3–Inductive Inference
1–Inductive Inference, 2–Inductive Inference, 3–Inductive Inference
- E
1–Reason, 2–Reason, 3– Reason
Statement 1 generalizes about “the chronic neglect of school education” based on a particular incident (the death of twenty two children as a consequence of food poisoning).
Statements 2 and 3 follow the same trend and generalize about the “commitment to universal primary education” and the “absence of strong normative procedures for the provision of infrastructure” on the basis of the aforementioned incident.
Therefore, all three statements are inductive inferences. This vindicates option 4 and eliminates the other options.
Hence, the correct answer is option 4.