PSC PYQLIC AAO Mains — 2019 — Previous Year Paper — Kerala PSC PYQ Practice with Answers
Browse preview questions from LIC AAO Mains — 2019 — Previous Year Paper. Sign in for timed full-paper practice in the app.
Paper details
- Paper code: lic-aao-mains-2019-reasoning
- Format: Full previous year paper — PYQ practice with answers
How to open this paper in PSC PYQ
Open the app and navigate: Exam Browse → LIC AAO Mains — 2019 — Previous Year Paper.
Attempt the full paper under timed conditions, then review weak topics using the preview links below or topic-wise practice in the app.
Preview questions (5)
Sample PYQs from this paper with answers and explanations — sign in for the full paper in the app.
Question 1 Reasoning Ability
Direction: Study the following information in which a statement is followed by five assumptions, read carefully and answer the question below-\n\nThe banking sector is facing tough times. But the sector is facing only short-term pain as the rise in non-performing assets (NPAs) is proving a key challenge for the industry at large. The regulator wanted some stringent measures to be taken, and the government is coming out with so many reforms and policies.\n\nWhich of the following can be assumed from the given statement?
Correct answer: D. After the implementation of suitable expedient, the things are likely to be changed for banking sector.
Correct answer (Option D):\nThe statement indicates that while the banking sector faces short-term pain due to rising NPAs, the regulator is demanding stringent measures and the government is actively rolling out multiple reforms and policies. An assumption underlying government action is that executing these targeted reforms and policies (suitable expedients) will positively change the situation and alleviate the challenges. Option D is correct.\n\nWhy others are wrong:\nOption A introduces external statistical values (2.4%) not mentioned in the text. Option B contradicts the constructive intent of the government reforms. Option C introduces an unrelated sector. Option E uses the word 'only', which is a major logical stretch, as NPAs are described as a key challenge but not necessarily the single solitary factor.\n\nStudy tip:\nWhen evaluating assumptions in critical reasoning, look for hidden premises that validate the purpose of the actions described in the passage. Avoid choices containing overly restrictive qualifiers like 'only' or 'never' unless explicitly substantiated by the text.
Question 2 Reasoning Ability
Direction: Study the following information in which a statement is followed by five conclusions, read carefully and answer the question below-\n\nOther than being an essential source of water for Indian agriculture, the monsoon plays a critical role in flushing out pollutants over Asia. However, recently increased pollution particularly from coal burning could potentially weaken this ability of the monsoon.\n\nWhich of the following can be deduced from the given statement?
Correct answer: A. The unusually high concentration of particulate matter in the last few days in India clearly shows that air pollution is emerging as a big problem.
Correct answer (Option A):\nThe statement links increased pollution (specifically from coal burning) directly to a potential breakdown in the environment's natural self-cleaning system (the monsoon's ability to flush out pollutants over Asia). This directly substantiates that the accumulation of high concentrations of pollutants highlights air pollution emerging as a major systemic problem. Option A is correct.\n\nWhy others are wrong:\nOptions B and C present complex broad climate-change scenarios (dry spells, warmer frequencies) that require external data assumptions not stated in the short paragraph. Option D explains historical rainfall stability through heavy downpours which is absent in text. Option E blames specific geographic dust storms in Rajasthan which completely ignores the text's focus on coal burning.\n\nStudy tip:\nIn conclusion/deduction questions, the correct option must follow directly from facts stated in the text without requiring any outside common knowledge or speculation.
Question 8 Reasoning Ability
Statements:\nAll SBI is RBI.\nSome RBI is UBI.\nAll UBI is BOB.\nSome BOB is not PNB.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Some BOB is RBI.\nII. Some UBI is not PNB.\nIII. All PNB is BOB is a possibility.\n\nWhich of the given conclusions logically does NOT follow from the given statements?
Correct answer: D. Only II
Correct answer (Option D):\nLet us evaluate each conclusion based on the statements:\n- Statement analysis: Since All UBI is BOB, and Some RBI is UBI, the intersection between RBI and UBI automatically becomes part of BOB. Thus, Some BOB is RBI is definitely true (Conclusion I follows).\n- Statement analysis: We are given that Some BOB is not PNB. However, this negative constraint applies to a specific part of BOB that does not necessarily overlap with UBI. No direct, definite negative relationship between UBI and PNB is established. Hence, Conclusion II (Some UBI is not PNB) does not definitely follow.\n- Statement analysis: Since the restriction states that some part of BOB cannot enter PNB, it leaves PNB completely free to be placed entirely inside BOB. Therefore, All PNB is BOB is a possibility is true (Conclusion III follows).\nSince the question asks for the conclusion that does NOT follow, Conclusion II is the correct answer. Option D is correct.\n\nWhy others are wrong:\nOptions A, B, C, and E are incorrect because they include Conclusions I or III, both of which are logically valid and definitely follow from the given premises.\n\nStudy tip:\nPay close attention to the question stem in Syllogism sections. Questions may ask for conclusions that 'do not follow' or are 'definitely false' instead of standard matching.
Question 9 Reasoning Ability
Statements:\nSome Seconds are Hour.\nSome Hour is Minutes.\nOnly watches are minutes.\nSome watches are Dial.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Some Dial is not Hour is a possibility.\nII. Some Minutes are second.\nIII. All seconds are watches.\n\nWhich of the given conclusions logically does NOT follow from the given statements?
Correct answer: C. Both II and III
Correct answer (Option C):\nLet us break down the statements and analyze the validity of the conclusions:\n- Statement analysis: The phrase 'Only watches are minutes' converts logically to 'All minutes are watches' with the exclusive restriction that minutes cannot belong to any other set except watches.\n- Conclusion I: There is no direct relationship specified between Dial and Hour. Thus, a possibility that some Dial is not Hour easily exists. Conclusion I follows.\n- Conclusion II: There is no direct intersection between the set of Minutes and Seconds. Thus, 'Some Minutes are second' does not follow.\n- Conclusion III: There is no statement linking all Seconds to Watches. Thus, 'All seconds are watches' does not follow.\nSince the question asks for the conclusions that do NOT follow, both II and III fit the criteria. Option C is correct.\n\nWhy others are wrong:\nOptions A, B, D, and E are incorrect because they fail to capture the pair of invalid conclusions (II and III) together or incorrectly label the valid conclusion I as non-following.\n\nStudy tip:\nRemember that the phrase 'Only A is B' translates to 'All B is A' and imposes a strict boundary: element B cannot share any relationship with any set other than A.
Question 10 Reasoning Ability
Statements:\nAll Lenovo is Honor.\nSome Honor is Moto.\nAll Moto is Samsung.\nSome Moto is Huawei.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Some Lenovo is Huawei.\nII. Some Samsung is not Huawei.\nIII. Some Lenovo is not Honor is a possibility.\n\nWhich of the given conclusions logically does NOT follow from the given statements?
Correct answer: E. None of these
Correct answer (Option E):\nLet us analyze the three conclusions according to the given premises:\n- Conclusion I: There is no definite link or statement creating an intersection between Lenovo and Huawei. Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.\n- Conclusion II: While we know that 'Some Moto is Huawei' and 'All Moto is Samsung', there is no negative constraint given between Samsung and Huawei. They can completely overlap as a possibility. Thus, a definite negative statement like 'Some Samsung is not Huawei' cannot be derived. Conclusion II does not follow.\n- Conclusion III: Statement 1 states 'All Lenovo is Honor'. This makes it a absolute fact. Therefore, any possibility statement suggesting that 'Some Lenovo is not Honor' is completely eliminated. Conclusion III does not follow.\nSince all three conclusions (I, II, and III) fail to follow, and there is no option explicitly stating 'All I, II and III do not follow', we select Option E (None of these).\n\nWhy others are wrong:\nOptions A, B, C, and D provide incomplete subsets of the non-following conclusions, failing to account for the fact that all three given conclusions fail to follow.\n\nStudy tip:\nWhen a statement establishes a absolute affirmative fact like 'All X is Y', any contrasting negative possibility regarding that specific relationship becomes automatically invalid.
Frequently asked questions
Browse preview questions on this page, or sign in at https://pscpyq.online/app/ and open the same paper in Exam Browse.
Sign in at PSC PYQ to practice the complete previous year paper with all questions and explanations.