Question

Directions: In the question there is a statement followed by two conclusions, numbered I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then consider the two conclusions together and decide which of them logically follows from the information given in the statement.
Statements: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as directors of these institutions.
Conclusions:
I. Government should appoint directors of the financial institutions taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.
II. The director of the financial institution should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institution.

• A. Only Conclusion I follows
• B. Only Conclusion II follows.
• C. Either Conclusion I or Conclusion II follows.
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows.
• E. Both Conclusions I and II follow.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Conclusion I: 
The statement says that the government has spoiled many top-ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as directors of these institutions. However, we can draw no conclusions about the reasons why these bureaucrats have had this negative impact. It is possible that bureaucrats also have the required expertise in finance but are indulging in nepotism or corruption and it is this conduct that has spoiled these institutions. Thus, conclusion I cannot be drawn. 
Conclusion II: 
This is a vague conclusion that has no direct bearing on the argument. The scope of ‘financial work’ of an institution is not defined and might include normal financial dealings of any institution. Such interactions don’t require any financial expertise on part of the directors. 
The correct answer is D.