CLAT 2020 | Logical Reasoning

Logical Reasoning | Previous Year Questions

CLAT Logical Reasoning

CLAT Logical Reasoning section tests the candidates’ ability to frame arguments based on premise(s), and draw conclusions and inferences. Though the passages do not require as much prowess over the English language as such, the ability to read and comprehend them quickly will come in handy. This section is more about making logical conclusions about an idea, as inferred from the passages.

The following CLAT Logical Reasoning questions have been framed with adequate focus on the difficulty level of CLAT. The passages have been chosen with an eye on diversity of topics and the variety of themes and arguments.

Try these questions out for free, to check your mettle on CLAT Logical Reasoning!

CLAT 2020 Logical Reasoning: Interpretition of Obscenity

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched an ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign in the then Soviet Union. The anti-alcohol campaign had some beneficial public health consequences: Crime fell and life expectancy rose. But the campaign was a political and economic disaster. Gorbachev forgot that the addiction of the state to alcohol revenue was even more incurable than the addiction of some citizens to alcohol itself. The budgetary losses created an economic crisis. Historians suspect that more than the loss of the Soviet Empire, it was this campaign that delegitimised Gorbachev. An old Soviet joke went like this: A disaffected and angry citizen, fed up of standing in lines for vodka, decided to go assassinate Gorbachev. He soon came back and ruefully reported that the lines to assassinate Gorbachev were even longer than the lines for Vodka. As the lockdown eased in India, and social distancing went for a toss at alcohol outlets, we were reminded of how difficult an issue alcohol is to rationally discuss in India. The stampede was caused by the ineptness with which the opening was handled in most cities. Alcohol has also migrated from being a question of personal freedom and choice to an issue in broader cultural wars, an odd site on which we measure progressivism in India. It is also a window on how liberalism has been misunderstood. Liberals should, rightly, be suspicious of prohibition on moral and practical grounds. Government grossly exceeds its legitimate power when it interferes with the rights of individuals to lead their lives as they please, and fashion their selves after their own ideals, interests and preferences. And certainly, moralism or puritanism on alcohol cannot be the basis of state policy. That moralism has no basis, and it violates the dignity and freedom of individuals.
[Excerpt from an Opinion by Bhanu Pratap Mehta, The Indian Express, May 7, 2020]

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

  1. State must not interfere at all with the individual‘s right to drink.
  2. Liberalism has always been misunderstood.
  3. It is very difficult to discuss any issue relating to personal freedom of individuals with rationality in India.
  4. None of the above.

Explanatory Answer

The State should interfere in the issue of alcohol, not only because it is a major source of its revenue, but also because its regulation will have a larger socio-economic effect. Liberalism has only been misunderstood in this particular ‘window’ of alcohol ban. Only alcohol is an issue which is difficult to discuss rationally in India – not all issues relating to personal freedom.

ICFAI Business School 2IIM CAT Online Coaching Classes 2IIM CAT Online Coaching Classes