7.4 Statements: Arguments, Assumptions & Conclusions

Why This Sub-Type Matters

The Reasoning section's verbal cluster — arguments, assumptions, conclusions, and decision-making — accounts for roughly 6–8 of the 30 reasoning marks. These items need no calculation, just disciplined reading and a clear rule for what counts as 'strong', 'implicit', or 'follows'. Most wrong answers come from importing outside knowledge or reacting emotionally; the rules below stop both errors.

Statement–Arguments

A statement is given (usually a proposed policy or action) followed by two arguments — one for, one against. You judge each as strong or weak.

Rules for a Strong Argument

1. Relevant — it addresses the core of the statement, not a side issue.
2. Substantive — it cites a real consequence (loss of jobs, gain in revenue, safety risk) rather than emotion or personal opinion.
3. Proportionate — the magnitude of the consequence matches the importance of the issue.
4. Factual or logically supported — verifiable or follows by reasonable inference.

Weak Argument Indicators

• Merely restates the statement ("This should be done because it is good").
• Cites personal preference, tradition, or emotion.
• Irrelevant to the substance of the statement.
• Disproportionate to the issue ("Should not ban plastic bags because shopkeepers will be unhappy" when measured against the environmental benefit).
• Uses extreme language without evidence ("will destroy the economy").

Worked Example 1

Statement: The government should make wearing helmets compulsory for all two-wheeler riders across the country.

Argument I: Yes, it will save thousands of lives every year by preventing fatal head injuries. Argument II: No, helmets are uncomfortable in summer and ruin hairstyles.

Verdict:

• Argument I is strong — it cites a substantive, factual consequence (saving lives) that is directly relevant and proportionate.
• Argument II is weak — comfort and hairstyle are personal, trivial concerns against a life-saving measure. They do not address the core issue of safety.

Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Statement–Assumptions

An assumption is an unstated premise on which the statement depends. The test: negate the assumption; if the statement collapses, the assumption is implicit.

Method

1. Read the statement and ask: "What must the speaker be taking for granted for this to make sense?"
2. Negate each given assumption.
3. If the negation makes the statement pointless, contradictory, or nonsensical, the assumption is implicit.
4. If the statement still works without the assumption, it is not implicit.

Worked Example 2

Statement: "Use Brand X cooking oil — it keeps your heart healthy."

Assumption I: Brand X cooking oil is safe for human consumption. Assumption II: People are conscious about heart health.

Test Assumption I: Negate it — "Brand X is not safe for consumption." The advertisement urging people to use it for heart health becomes absurd. So I is implicit.

Test Assumption II: Negate it — "People do not care about heart health." If people do not care, the appeal to heart health would not sell the product; the advertisement would be pointless. So II is implicit.

Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Trap: Do not declare an assumption implicit just because it is generally true. It must be necessary for this statement. "Cooking oil is liquid at room temperature" is true but not implicit here — the ad works whether oil is liquid or solid.

Statement–Conclusions

A statement is given followed by conclusions. You decide which conclusions follow — i.e., are logically deducible from the statement alone, without outside knowledge.

Method

1. Treat the statement as the only source of truth.
2. For each conclusion, ask: "Does the statement force this to be true?"
3. If yes → follows. If it merely might be true, or needs outside facts → does not follow.

Worked Example 3

Statement: The education ministry has made mathematics compulsory for all students up to Class 10.

Conclusion I: Earlier, mathematics was not compulsory for all students up to Class 10. Conclusion II: Students will now have a stronger foundation in mathematics.

Verdict:

• Conclusion I follows — the word "has made compulsory" implies that previously it was not compulsory. The statement itself entails a change.
• Conclusion II does not follow — "stronger foundation" is a prediction about outcomes. The statement does not prove it; it might be true in reality, but it is not deducible from the statement alone.

Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Decision-Making

A situation is given with a problem, followed by several candidate actions. You pick the best action.

Criteria for the Right Action

1. Addresses the root cause, not just the symptom.
2. Feasible — within the powers and resources of the decision-maker.
3. Proportionate — the response matches the scale of the problem.
4. Lawful and ethical — does not violate rules or fairness.
5. Does not create a bigger problem than it solves.

Worked Example 4

Situation: A station master finds that a large crowd has gathered on the platform and there is no train for the next 30 minutes. Some passengers are sitting on the tracks.

Action A: Order the railway police to forcibly remove the passengers from the tracks. Action B: Announce the next train timing on the public address system and request passengers to clear the tracks for their own safety.

Verdict:

• Action A addresses safety but uses force first, which can cause panic and stampede — a bigger problem.
• Action B addresses the cause (uncertainty about the next train) and uses persuasion first, which is safer and proportionate.

Answer: Action B is the better course of action.

Quick Comparison Table

Exam trap: In conclusion questions, RRB often bundles a conclusion that is probably true with one that necessarily follows. "Probably true" is not enough — only "necessarily follows" counts as 'follows'.