SRCC GBO 2009 Question Paper

If it is known that the militants were hiding in area X and cannot be traced after the search, it is clear that they either kept hiding with the support of locals or ran away before the search. There cannot be any other possibility. Hence, either of the statements is correct. 

It is given that a lot of officers were transferred by the Chief Secretary, except for those who kept him in good humor. 

R1: The main statement mentions about 'good humor', which is insufficient to say that the Chief Secretary is a jolly person. 

R2: Since the only officers who were not transferred are the ones who kept the Chief Secretary in good humour, it is clear that the transfers were made on the personal feelings of the Chief Secretary. Hence, a valid statement. 

The two statements focus on the party losing in the election and the noticeable lack of enthusiasm among the workers. However, there is no direct correlation between the two statements as expressed in the question. 

Hence, we cannot state whether the party workers play an important role, because no such correlation has been expressed between losing the elections and lack of enthusiasm. These two might be two stand-alone statements. 

From the same logic, we cannot say that had the workers been dedicated enough, the win was a sure shot thing. 

We shall mainly focus on the line which had faulty designs or inferior material.

Hence, it is clear that either the reason is faulty design or interior material. 

This means either R1 or R2 is true.

As per the statements, if a person dies in police custody, the police official is summoned. Further, if the atrocities are proved, they are punishable under law. 

Hence, it is clear that the law is considerate for criminals, providing a safeguard to them by preventing them from atrocities. 

However, we cannot state that a person cannot die a natural death in the custody. 

In this, we shall test each option to arrive at the correct pair.

1. No wealthy persons are vagrants, All lawyers are wealthy persons, Some lawyers are vagrants: This is logically inconsistent, because it can be clearly seen that wealthy people can't be vagrants, and all lawyers are wealthy people. Hence, they cannot be vagrants.

2. All lawyers are wealthy persons, No lawyers are vagrants, All lawyers are vagrants: The second and third statements are contradictory in nature, hence logically inconsistent. 

3. No wealthy persons are vagrants, All lawyers are wealthy persons, All lawyers are vagrants: This is logically inconsistent by the same logic as Option 1. 

4. No wealthy persons are vagrants, All lawyers are wealthy persons, No lawyers are vagrant: This is logically consistent because it can be clearly seen that wealthy people can't be vagrants, and all lawyers are wealthy people. Hence, they cannot be vagrants. 

We shall test each option to find whether they are logically consistent or not: 

1. CBA: It is clearly given that no preacher is an intellectual, while some intellectuals are persons of unfailing vigour. From this, we cannot conclude that some preachers are persons of unfailing vigour because there might be a case where preachers and persons with unfailing vigour are disjointed sets. 

2. CBD: It is clearly given that no preacher is an intellectual, while some intellectuals are persons of unfailing vigour. From this, we can definitely conclude that some persons with unfailing vigour are not preachers, exactly those who are intellectuals. 

3. ABD: We cannot conclude that some persons of unfailing vigour are not preachers, because there might be a case where both of them are overlapping sets with the same elements in total.

4. CBE: In this, we don't have any relationship given about persons with unfailing vigour and preachers. Hence, an invalid connection.