Statement & Conclusion
Outline & Learning Goals
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Understand what a Statement and a Conclusion actually mean in exam language.
- Apply the golden rule: *a conclusion must follow from the statement alone — not from your general knowledge.*
- Identify the standard conclusion patterns (direct, indirect, action-based, course-of-action style).
- Spot the examiner's favourite traps and reject tempting-but-wrong options in seconds.
- Solve any Statement–Conclusion question in under 30 seconds with a fixed method.
The Hook: The Question That Fools Toppers
Consider this exam-style question:
> Statement: "All the students in the class who studied hard passed the exam."
> Conclusion I: Some students who passed studied hard.
> Conclusion II: Students who failed did not study hard.
Most students mark "both follow" — and lose a mark. Why? Because Conclusion II *feels* true in real life, but the statement never says anything about students who failed. Maybe some lazy students also passed. The statement is silent, so the conclusion cannot be drawn.
That is the entire game of this chapter: your brain wants to use real-world knowledge; the examiner rewards only strict logic. Once you accept this one rule, this chapter becomes one of the highest-scoring areas in reasoning — because the questions are short, the options are few, and the method never changes.
Why Students Struggle Here (And Why You Won't)
Three reasons students lose marks in Statement & Conclusion:
- They add outside knowledge. The statement says "Some politicians are honest." The student thinks, "Well, actually most aren't…" — and rejects a valid conclusion. Wrong move. Inside the exam hall, the statement is the *entire universe*.
- They confuse "possible" with "certain". A conclusion must be *definitely* true, not *probably* true.
- They treat both conclusions as a package. Each conclusion is judged independently. One can follow while the other fails.
🧠 Active Recall: Before reading further, answer this from memory — *Can a conclusion be correct if it is true in real life but not stated or implied by the statement?* (Answer: No. Only the statement matters.)
Chunk 1: What Is a Statement? What Is a Conclusion?
Statement: A sentence or short passage given to you. Treat it as 100% true, even if it contradicts reality. If the statement says "The sun rises in the west," then for that question, the sun rises in the west.
Conclusion: A judgement or inference that is claimed to follow from the statement. Your job is to test whether it *logically and necessarily* follows.
The Golden Rule (memorise this):
> A conclusion follows only if it must be true whenever the statement is true. If you can imagine even one situation where the statement is true but the conclusion is false, the conclusion does not follow.
Standard answer formats in exams:
- (a) Only conclusion I follows
- (b) Only conclusion II follows
- (c) Either I or II follows
- (d) Neither I nor II follows
- (e) Both I and II follow
🧠 Active Recall: Write the Golden Rule in your own words on a rough sheet. Do it now — don't just nod.
Chunk 2: The 4-Step Method (Use It Every Single Time)
Step 1 — Read the statement twice. Underline the subject, the action, and any qualifiers (all, some, only, few, most).
Step 2 — Read Conclusion I alone. Ask: "If the statement is true, is this conclusion *forced* to be true?" Ignore Conclusion II completely for now.
Step 3 — Repeat for Conclusion II independently.
Step 4 — Check for the "Either-Or" case. Either-Or applies only when ALL three conditions hold:
- Both conclusions are individually invalid (neither follows on its own),
- Both talk about the same subject and predicate,
- Together they cover all possibilities (one positive, one negative — a complementary pair).
Example of a valid Either-Or pair:
> Conclusion I: Ram is guilty. Conclusion II: Ram is not guilty.
(If the statement doesn't settle it, exactly one of these must be true — so "either I or II follows.")
🧠 Active Recall: What are the three conditions for an Either-Or answer? Recite them without looking.
Chunk 3: The Five Conclusion Patterns You Will Actually See
Pattern 1 — Direct restatement. The conclusion simply rephrases the statement. ✅ Follows.
> Statement: "The company has decided to increase salaries by 10%."
> Conclusion: "Salaries of the company's employees will rise." ✅
Pattern 2 — Over-generalisation. The conclusion stretches one case into a universal law. ❌ Does not follow.
> Statement: "Ravi, a cricketer, is fit."
> Conclusion: "All cricketers are fit." ❌ (One example proves nothing about all.)
Pattern 3 — Keyword hijack. The conclusion uses a word from the statement but changes its meaning or scope. ❌
> Statement: "Some doctors are rich."
> Conclusion: "Some rich people are dishonest." ❌ ("Dishonest" appears nowhere.)
Pattern 4 — Extreme words. Conclusions containing *all, every, always, never, none, only* are usually wrong unless the statement itself is equally extreme. Words like *some, may, possibly* are safer but still must be supported.
Pattern 5 — Hidden assumption smuggled in. The conclusion adds a cause, motive, or prediction the statement never mentioned. ❌
> Statement: "The government has increased the education budget."
> Conclusion: "The government wants to win the next election." ❌ (Motive is invented.)
🧠 Active Recall: Which pattern does this belong to — Statement: "A few students were absent." Conclusion: "Attendance in schools is falling every year."? (Pattern 2 + 5 combined: over-generalisation plus an invented trend.)
Chunk 4: The Mnemonic — "S.I.E.V.E."
Filter every conclusion through the SIEVE:
- S — Statement only: Does it come from the statement alone, with zero outside knowledge?
- I — Independent check: Did I judge each conclusion separately?
- E — Extreme words: Does it use all/never/only without support? Reject.
- V — Very certain: Is it *definitely* true, not just *probably* true?
- E — Either-Or test: If both fail, do they form a complementary pair on the same subject?
If a conclusion passes all five filters, it follows. If it fails even one, reject it.
Chunk 5: A Worked Example (Advanced Level)
> Statement: "The National Highway Authority has decided to widen the highway between City A and City B, as the number of accidents on this stretch has doubled in the last two years."
>
> Conclusion I: Widening the highway will reduce the number of accidents.
> Conclusion II: The stretch between City A and City B is accident-prone.
Analysis:
- Conclusion I: The authority *hopes* widening will help, but the statement never says widening reduces accidents. Accidents may be due to drunk driving or fog. This is a prediction smuggled in (Pattern 5). ❌ Does not follow.
- Conclusion II: Accidents have *doubled* on this stretch — the statement directly supports calling it accident-prone. ✅ Follows.
Answer: Only conclusion II follows.
Notice how the "sensible-sounding" Conclusion I is the trap, and the "plain" Conclusion II is the answer. This reversal is the examiner's signature move.
🧠 Active Recall: In one line, why did Conclusion I fail? (Because the statement gives no link between widening and fewer accidents — it's an assumption, not a conclusion.)
Summary Table
| Concept | Rule | Quick Test |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | Always treat as 100% true | Ignore real-world facts |
| Conclusion follows | Must be *necessarily* true | Can I imagine a counter-case? If yes → reject |
| Outside knowledge | Strictly forbidden | "Do I know this, or does the statement say this?" |
| Extreme words (all/never/only) | Usually invalid | Reject unless statement is equally extreme |
| Either-Or | Both fail + same subject + complementary pair | All 3 conditions must hold |
| Each conclusion | Judged independently | Never decide them as a pair first |
| Method | S.I.E.V.E. filter | 5 checks, ~25 seconds |
📌 Review this chapter after 2 days. Redo the worked example from memory, write the SIEVE mnemonic on a blank page, and re-test yourself on the Either-Or conditions. Spaced repetition is what converts this chapter into permanent marks.
⚠️ Caution: Examiner's Trap
Trap 1 — The "more than one possible relation" illusion.
The examiner designs options so that a conclusion looks connected to the statement in multiple ways, hoping you'll accept a *plausible* link instead of a *necessary* one. Remember: plausibility is not proof. If the link needs even one extra assumption, the conclusion fails.
Trap 2 — Difficult vocabulary to confuse you.
Words like "ameliorate," "stringent," "deterioration," or long bureaucratic sentences are used to make a simple logic question *feel* hard. The logic underneath is almost always basic. Translate the statement into plain words on your rough sheet first, then apply SIEVE. Never let fancy English push you into guessing.
Trap 3 — Double-relation questions (the Either-Or fake).
Two conclusions that *look* like a complementary pair but are about different subjects, or where one conclusion already follows on its own. In both cases, "Either-Or" is wrong. Check the three Either-Or conditions strictly — examiners count on you remembering only "one positive, one negative" and skipping the other two conditions.