Explanation:
Your ability to recognize a pattern in the information provided and to draw valid conclusions will be tested in inductive reasoning tests. The only assertion that mentions probability is B. The question is asking you to choose the greatest illustration of inductive reasoning, even though all of the claims may be true.
Explanation:
The only thing we can infer from the pattern that has been shown to us is that all of the rooms have color names, thus it is reasonable to anticipate that the remaining rooms will likewise have color names.
Explanation:
Given what we know, it makes sense to think Peter is the offender. The information concerning Margaret and Alice is irrelevant in this situation, but it might be useful for a logical argument. Peter appears to be guilty based on his pattern of behavior.
Explanation:
The dimensions of the motorbike and bicycle are neither directly or indirectly compared. As a result, there is not enough data to determine whether the assertion is true or not.
Explanation:
According to lines 6 and 3, the bus is two times larger than the German automobile, and the motorcycle is just half as big. As a result, the bus is four times smaller than the motorcycle. The assertion is false.
Explanation:
According to line 5, the motorcycle is from the same nation as the cars next to the German car. Only Dutch cars, according to line 2, are parked close to the German vehicle. This confirms that the claim is accurate and that the motorcycle is Dutch.
Explanation:
8 square feet of canvas can be painted with 4 tubes of paint. 7,5 (1x1,5 + 2x3) square feet of the canvas are present in the box as a whole. As a result, the assertion is accurate.