Question

The FIRST and the LAST sentences of the paragraph are numbered 1 & 6. The others, labelled as P, Q, R and S are given below. Arrange them to form the MOST LOGICALLY ORDERED paragraph.
1. Suppose I know someone, Smith.
P. One day you come to me and say: “Smith is in Cambridge.”
Q. I inquire, and find you stood at Guildhall and saw at the other end a man and said: “That was Smith.”
R. I’d say: “Listen. This isn’t sufficient evidence.”
S. I’ve heard that he has been killed in a battle in this war.
6. If we had a fair amount of evidence he was killed I would try to make you say that you’re being credulous.
Which of the following combinations is the MOST LOGICALLY ORDERED?

• A. 1SPQR6
• B. 1RSQ6
• C. 1PRSQ6
• D. 1QSRP6
• E. 1RQPS6

Hint:

For para-jumbles, look for \textbf{claim–counter-claim} structures and \textbf{evidence chains}. A statement that gives a \textit{reason/source} (like Q explaining P) usually follows the statement it supports; evaluative lines (like R) then appraise that evidence, and conclusions often echo key terms from earlier claims (here, “killed” in S and 6).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Identify the opening context and the thematic contrast.
Sentence 1 introduces the subject “Smith.” Among the fragments, S (“I’ve heard that he has been killed…”) introduces a \textit{claim about Smith} that sets up a tension with any later report of seeing him alive. Hence, 1 $\Rightarrow$ S is natural.
Step 2: Place the counter-claim and its basis.
After the rumor of death in S, a natural rebuttal is the report that Smith was seen alive: P (“Smith is in Cambridge.”). But P is only a bare assertion; Q supplies the \textit{source and weakness} of that assertion—merely seeing someone at a distance and identifying him as Smith. Thus, S $\Rightarrow$ P $\Rightarrow$ Q.
Step 3: Provide the evaluation of the evidence.
Given the flimsy identification in Q, the author’s response in R (“This isn’t sufficient evidence.”) logically follows as an appraisal of the sighting. Hence, Q $\Rightarrow$ R.
Step 4: Conclude with the conditional wrap-up that links back to the death claim.
Sentence 6 refers back to the death hypothesis (“If we had a fair amount of evidence he was killed…”) and says the sighting would be credulous in that case. This neatly \textit{closes the loop} begun in S. Therefore, R $\Rightarrow$ 6.
Final order: \quad \boxed{1 \;\rightarrow\; S \;\rightarrow\; P \;\rightarrow\; Q \;\rightarrow\; R \;\rightarrow\; 6}
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (A) } 1SPQR6} \]