In the following question, one statement is given, followed by certain inferences. Consider the statement to be true even if it s…

Question

In the following question, one statement is given, followed by certain inferences. Consider the statement to be true even if it seems to contradict commonly known facts. Read the inferences carefully and decide which of them logically follow(s) from the given statement.

Statement: Humans cannot match the data processing speed of supercomputers, which perform billions of calculations per second.

Inferences:

I. Humans are less efficient than supercomputers in data processing.

II. Humans and supercomputers differ in their capabilities.

1. A. Only II follows
2. B. Both I and II follows (Correct answer)
3. C. Neither I nor II follows
4. D. Only I follows

Correct Answer

Option B — Both I and II follows

Detailed Solution & Explanation

The correct answer is Both I and II follows.

Key Points

• The statement asserts that humans cannot match the data-processing speed of supercomputers, which perform billions of calculations per second.
• Inference I — humans are less efficient than supercomputers in data processing — follows. Being unable to match a speed is a direct statement of inferiority in that respect.
• Inference II — humans and supercomputers differ in their capabilities — follows. If one cannot match the other, a difference in capability is entailed; this is a weaker claim than I and is comfortably supported.
• Since both are entailed, the answer is that both follow.

Additional Information

• A weaker, more general inference is usually safe when a stronger specific claim has already been established — II is essentially a generalisation of I.
• Contrast this with assumption questions, where the required statement must be presupposed *before* the claim rather than derived from it.
• An inference fails when it adds information the statement never supplies — for instance "supercomputers will replace humans" would go far beyond what is stated.
• Test each inference by asking whether it could be false while the statement remains true; if not, it follows.