Explanation:
We can infer from the facts that J and K are probably teachers or lecturers and own automobiles, while H is a doctor and owns a motorcycle, I is a manager and owns a scooter, and so on.
We must select the response option that we are confident is true while searching for the answer that MUST be true.
Explanation:
The following room pairings can be inferred from the provided information:
A, G – Room 1
B, E – Room 2
C, F – Room 3
D, H – Room 4
Explanation:
The chairperson is seated between Participants B and C, who both represent Continent X, according to the information provided. Therefore, Participants D and E from Continent Y must take up the seats next to Participants B and C, respectively.
The seat between Participants D and E must be occupied by Participant A. Participants B and C, D and E, and their precise seats cannot be determined from the available information, but it is true in both scenarios that Participant D is seated next to Participant A.
Explanation:
It is the most convincing explanation regarding how rehabilitation will turn out.
Explanation:
It is the sole defense that focuses on enhancing traffic safety (accident rate).
Explanation:
We can infer from the information provided that the lawyer's father is an engineer and his mother is a doctor. The lawyer's wife is a librarian, and their daughter is a painter. So the doctor is the grandma of the painter.
Explanation:
It takes into account how government action will affect everyone who wears a uniform (all the students).
Explanation:
Even if some think it's disrespectful, women should be able to make their own decisions.
Explanation:
It explains how these courses are used by many of the participants ("many students").
Explanation:
It makes a connection between unhealthy drinking and inexpensive grocery sales, which may encourage it.
Explanation:
Both the topic of global warming and the problem of a time limit are covered in the argument.