Reasoning (Deductive, Inductive, Abductive) MCQ — 1292 Practice Questions with Answers

Explanation

Argument I is strong because nominee details are directly connected with account records and later claim disputes; keeping them current is an important banking concern. Argument II is also strong because the proposal makes confirmation a precondition for reactivation, and that can materially affect genuine customers needing urgent access. Strong arguments can exist on both sides when both are relevant and important. Both arguments are strong: I gives a record-risk benefit, while II gives a genuine access-delay risk. The trap is thinking opposite conclusions cannot both be strong.

Explanation

The first statement means: if an account is eligible for the family-benefit facility, then it has a registered nominee. It does not say that every account with a registered nominee is eligible. Therefore, from 'Some joint savings accounts have a registered nominee', conclusion I does not follow. Since no joint savings account is proved to be eligible, the chain to insured accounts cannot be applied to joint savings accounts. Hence conclusion II also does not follow. Neither follows. The key trap is reading 'only nominee accounts are eligible' as 'all nominee accounts are eligible'.

Explanation

The problem has two parts: senior citizens need interest certificates, and the branch is facing long queues. Course I addresses both by giving them assisted service through a separate desk and appointment slots. It is practical and keeps the service accessible. Course II may reduce branch work, but it ignores the difficulty many senior citizens may face with website use and removes an existing service. It is therefore not an appropriate course. Only Course I follows. Course I balances queue management with access. The trap is assuming that a digital option justifies withdrawing branch support.

Explanation

Argument I is strong because the proposal is about adding practical travel information, and the argument explains a direct benefit for passengers who may move slowly or carry luggage. Argument II is weak because it considers only regular passengers. A station also serves first-time passengers, visitors and people who may not know the layout, so the argument does not seriously answer the proposal. Only argument I is strong because it gives a direct passenger-movement benefit. The trap is assuming regular passengers represent all passengers.

Explanation

The bank is waiving the reactivation charge with the stated aim of getting dormant account holders to use their accounts again. This assumes that the waiver can influence at least some such holders; otherwise the announcement would not serve its stated purpose. So assumption I is implicit. The cause of dormancy need not be a shift to another bank. Accounts may become dormant for many reasons, and the statement does not rely on one universal cause. Hence assumption II is not implicit. The policy assumes the fee waiver can motivate some account holders. The trap is importing a single cause for dormancy that the statement never needs.