5/13/2016
Identify Errors ­ CLAT/AILET 2016
by Test Takers
CLAT 2016 Errors ­ from my side
ARGHYA SAMADDAR · FRIDAY, 13 MAY 2016
I have tried to do my best and filter out the genuine errors which can be challenged. As the number of the questions and the sequence are different from person to person I have mentioned the Question ID beside every question. If there is any additional question containing errors please comment. Please comment if you think I have added wrong questions or have missed some. Be gentle and kind with me. English ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
General Knowledge ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Maths
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Legal Reasoning Question ID :2185952542 Principles: • A person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any other person to do that thing. https://www.facebook.com/notes/1051294904909240/CLAT%202016%20Errors%20­%20from%20my%20side%20/1053634614675269/
1/4
5/13/2016
Identify Errors ­ CLAT/AILET 2016
• Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation. Facts: 'A' says to 'B': I am going to kill 'C'." And, 'B' replies: "Do as you wish and take the consequences"; where after 'A' kills 'C'. 1. B' has abetted 'A' by conspiracy . 2. 'B' has not abetted 'A' to kill 'C'. 3. 'B' abetted 'A' to kill 'C'. 4. 'B' is jointly liable with 'A' for killing 'C'. Given answer: 3 , Correct answer: 2
[A person is said to have abetted someone if he/she instigated, and principle 2 states that mere acquiescence ( the reluctant acceptance of something without protest) does not amount
to instigation. Here B said A, casually (as you can sense it after reading it), to do as he wishes
and did not in anyway instigate A in particular, what he did can be said as ‘acquiescence ’ and
mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation. Hence, it is not an instigation and answer should be 2]
Logical Reasoning Question ID :2185952616 Who among the following is the odd one in the following group of persons? Chief Justice of India, Attorney General of India, Solicitor General, Advocate General 1. Attorney General of India. 2. Advocate General. 3. Chief Justice of India. 4. Solicitor General. Given answer : 3, Correct answer: 2, 3 and 4 and hence, Question should be cancelled [ Logic number 1 ­ if we categorise on the basis of state level and national level then answer will be Attorney General , logic number 2 ­ if we categorise it on the basis of constitutional post and statutory post then answer will be Solicitor General , logic number 3 ­ If we https://www.facebook.com/notes/1051294904909240/CLAT%202016%20Errors%20­%20from%20my%20side%20/1053634614675269/
2/4
5/13/2016
Identify Errors ­ CLAT/AILET 2016
categorise it on the basis of Judge and Legal Advisors , then answer will be CJI , So rationality says that this question has 3 answers and should be cancelled ]
Question ID :2185952598 There is some relationship between the figures given in the series. Find out the missing one from the alternatives given below. (VISUAL REASONING)
[Not able to upload the picture]
Given answer : 4 , Correct answer: 4 , Question should be cancelled As per clat website, they explicitly said that they are not going to ask Visual Reasoning in logic, by asking VR they have violated this clause. This is a clear breach. Hence, irrespective of what you have marked, they must cancel this question.
Question ID :2185952614 Identify the argument which cannot be accepted. 1. All wives are married. Therefore, all married people are wives.
2. All rainy days are wet days. Therefore, all wet days are rainy days.
3. All unmarried women are spinsters. Therefore, all spinsters are women.
4. All equilateral triangles are equiangular. Therefore, all equiangular triangles are equilateral. Given answer: 1 , Correct answer: 1, 2 , 3 and 4 [Logic says, All A are B does not mean All B are A, similarly All wives are married doesn’t mean, all married (people) are wives, and all these statements are in same format and all of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1051294904909240/CLAT%202016%20Errors%20­%20from%20my%20side%20/1053634614675269/
3/4
5/13/2016
Identify Errors ­ CLAT/AILET 2016
them have committed the same fallacy, hence, all of them cannot be accepted as an argument]
https://www.facebook.com/notes/1051294904909240/CLAT%202016%20Errors%20­%20from%20my%20side%20/1053634614675269/
4/4