Question

Directions: Each question has a set of four sequentially ordered statements. Each statement can be classified as one of the following:

• Fact (F): a piece of information that has been heard, seen or read, and which is open to discovery or verification.
• Inference (I): a conclusion drawn about the unknown, on the basis of the known.
• Judgment (J): an opinion that implies approval or disapproval of persons, objects, situations or occurrences in the past, present or future.

Select the answer option that best describes the set of four statements.

1. Yuvraj Singh's 6 sixes in an over in the match against England in the Twenty20 World Cup helped him score the fastest 50 in any form of cricket.
2. India would have lost the game against England if Yuvraj had not played.
3. Yuvraj's innings propelled India to a score which would have otherwise been difficult to reach.
4. Yuvraj Singh won the Man of the Match award for his outstanding performance in India's match against England.

• A. FIIF
• B. IJIF
• C. FJJF
• D. FIJF

Hint:

Ask whether each statement can be checked against a record (Fact) or whether it rests on a hypothetical "would have" scenario reflecting the writer's own view (Judgment).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The fastest way through this kind of question is to ask one plain question of every statement: can I check this against a scorecard or a record, or am I reading someone's opinion about how things "would have" turned out? Run that test on all four statements one at a time.

1. Statement 1: Yuvraj hit 6 sixes in an over and that gave him the fastest 50 in any form of cricket. Both details, the six sixes and the record timing of the fifty, sit in the official scorecard and record books. Anyone can pull up the match data and confirm them, so this is a Fact.
2. Statement 2: India would have lost if Yuvraj had not played. This talks about a version of the match that never actually happened, so there is nothing to check it against. It reads as the writer's personal take on how important Yuvraj's innings was, an opinion dressed up as a claim about the past, which makes it a Judgment rather than a Fact or a tight logical Inference.
3. Statement 3: Yuvraj's innings took India to a score that "would have otherwise been difficult to reach." Just like statement 2, this leans on the writer's own sense of how tough that target was, it is not something pulled from the scoreboard, it is an evaluation. This is also a Judgment.
4. Statement 4: Yuvraj won the Man of the Match award. Award announcements are public and verifiable, so this goes back to being a Fact, the same category as statement 1.

Lining the four labels up in the order the statements appear gives F, J, J, F, which spells out as FJJF.

Let's summarize:

• Statements built on match records or public announcements (statements 1 and 4) are Facts.
• Statements built on "would have" scenarios that can never be checked (statements 2 and 3) are Judgments, since they carry the writer's own evaluation.

The correct sequence is FJJF, matching option (c).