Reasoning the Reason

LEGAL ,LOGICAL , ANALYTICAL REASONING

LEGAL REASONING


1. PRINCIPLES:
1. An act done, even if without the consent of a person is not an offence, provided the offender did not intend to cause death, and the act was done for the person’s benefit, in good faith.

2. Mere pecuniary benefit is not a ‘thing done for a person’s benefit’.
FACTS: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed. Is A guilty?
(a) Yes, A had knowledge of his dangerous act. His act was not justified.
(b) Yes, A should have tried a less dangerous alternative.
(c) No, his act was done in good faith to save the child.
(d) No, he had the best of intentions and this was the only alternative.

2. PRINCIPLES:
1. Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence.
2. After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence with the intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence which is by itself an offence.
FACTS: Rajesh wanted to kill Ragini and had therefore gone to the market to buy explosives to plant in her house. Rajesh kept those explosives in his godown as he planned to plant them early next morning. But as the explosives were stolen in the night he could not plant them in Ragini’s house. However, Ragini came to know about Rajesh’s plan and therefore wants to file a complaint against him. Will she succeed?
(a) Yes, because he has done something more than mere preparation.
(b) No, because Ragini did not die.
(c) Yes, because there existed a mala fide intention.
(d) No, because mere preparation is no offence.

The answers are 1. (c); 2. (d).


LOGICAL REASONING


1. Two men, Anil and David and two women, Shabnam and Rekha are in a sales group. Only two speak Tamil. The other two speak Marathi. Only one man and one woman can drive a car. Shabnam speaks Marathi. Anil speaks Tamil. Both Rekha and David can drive.
Which of the following statements is true?
(a) Both the Tamil speakers can drive a car
(b) Both the Marathi speakers can drive a car
(c) Both of those who can drive a car speak Marathi
(d) One of those who can drive a car speaks Tamil

2. A society consists of only two types of people—fighters and cowards. Two cowards are always friends. A fighter and a coward are always enemies. Fighters are indifferent to one another. A and B are enemies, C and D are friends, E and F are indifferent to each other, A and E are not enemies, while B and F are enemies.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(a) B, C and F are cowards
(b) A, E and F are fighters
(c) B and E are in the same category
(d) A and F are in different categories.

The answers are: 1. (d); 2. (b).


ANALYTICAL REASONING


A recent survey by a leading NGO came to the following conclusion about donor psychology: If you are interested in getting a good donation, you need to realise that donors are almost never disturbed by being asked for too much. In fact, the result is the opposite – they are flattered. Besides, if you ask for too much, the donor can always suggest a smaller amount. On the other hand, if you ask for too little, the donor is usually offended. A common reaction to being asked too little is “so that’s all he thinks I’m worth.”
The above statement assumes that
(a) Donors are usually never asked for enough.
(b) A good fund raiser will value the worth of the donor.
(c) It is worth the gamble to ask for large donations.
(d) None of these.

The answer is (c).

Leave a Comment