Q2 VERBAL LOGIC
In order to ease the traffic congestion, the transport planners
decided to have a sophisticated system of elevated monorail travel in the city.
However, it was pointed out by somebody that a metro rail system would be a
more effective solution to the traffic problem. The plan was thus stalled.
Moreover, since a budget had not been drawn up for the project, it was deemed
fit to stall the work of the monorail for some time. In the meanwhile, the
traffic planners of the city decided to build an efficient system of subways
and flyovers in the city with the aim of easing same problem. At the instant
when the planners were preparing to award the contracts to the concerned
parties, the transport planners came up with the contention that the subways
interfered with the site of a pillar of the monorail system. The traffic
planners had to give up the idea and think of other possible solutions. Which
of the following can we infer from the above passage?
Option A cannot be inferred as it is nowhere mentioned. Option B is
not necessarily true. The two groups may not agree to each others plans even if
they are friendly with each other. Thus, just from the fact that they opposed
each others plans we cannot infer that there is contention between the two
groups. From the paragraph, we can infer that neither of the two groups can
proceed i.e. neither the traffic planners nor the transport planners can move
ahead with any plan. Thus, both the parties are dead-locked. Hence, we can
infer option C
Write Here