MAT 2001Question Paper

Ram is an employee of the company A and all the employees of company A have identity cards. So Ram has an identity card. Hence conclusion I follows.

There is no information about General Manager of company A from the statements. so conclusion II is unrelated and pointless. Hence conclusion II do not follow.

$$\therefore\ $$Only conclusion I follows the given statements.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A

Prices of onions can go up for reasons beyond and other than shortage in the production of onions. hence, conclusion 1 cannot be made with complete confidence. Conclusion 2 is irrelevant. Hence, C. 

The first statement "If all players play to their full potential, we will win the match." does not mean that the match will be won ONLY if all players play to full potential. The guarantee is only one directional. 
Hence, even if the match was won, it is not assured that all players must have played to their full potential. 

Also, the second conclusion cannot be said to have occurred definitely. Either conclusion 1 happened or conclusion 2 happened. None can be said to have occurred with complete certainty. Hence, neither of the 2 follow. 

Even though some businessmen are rich and Sonam is also rich, it doesn't necessarily mean that Sonam is also a businessman. 
Also, there is no relevance of owning a farm. Hence, none of the 2 conclusions follow. 

It is not necessary that only people who own house/car/both file income tax return. So it is perfectly valid that Shiela doesn't own either of these and yet files income tax return.
However, from the given statements of conclusion, we know clearly that either Shiela owns house/car or she doesn't own any at all. There be no common ground nor a situation other than these 2. Hence, either I follows or II. 

Shyam got selected in the team means that:
1. He is a good batsman
OR 2. He is a good bowler
OR 3. He is both a good bowler and a good batsman

Any of these 3 situations is possible. If Shyam is a good batsman doesn't mean that he is a bad bowler. We only know that he is a good batsman and thus, got selected to the team. Same logic applies if Shyam is a good bowler. 
Hence, neither I or II follows with certainty. 

We are told that crops cannot be good if rains do not happen. And then we are given that crops turned out to be good. 
Hence, it follows rationally that rains happened. Hence, I follows. 

There is no mention of fertilizers or their effect on crops. Hence, nothing can be said about II. Hence, only I follows. 

We are given that man evolved from a monkey. However, it is not given how much time the evolution actually took. It can be anything.
So even if X is a particular monkey, it may or may not live long enough to evolve into a man. 
Hence, we cannot say that X can become a man. 
Also, the question of man becoming a monkey again does not arise because we are not given whether the evolution is unidirectional or reversible. Hence, none follow. 

In the given figures, Only the figure 1 is a regular polygon with all sides and interior angles are equal. In other figures the sides are irregular and not equal.

$$\therefore\ $$Figure 1 is the odd one among the given figures.

The arrowed line is perpendicular to the plain segment in all of 1, 2, 4. Only in 3 there is a deviation from this pattern. Hence, odd one out.