In the following question, two statements are given each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements. Statement: (I) Major companies are nowadays surviving because of the strong supply chain system. (II) Supply chain comprises of logistics, retailers and distributers. Conclusions: (I) Retailers play most important role because they interact with customers on first hand. (II) If an organization has strong logistics, then product can easily be available to the customers in such an era of competition.

In the following question, two statements are given each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements. Statement: (I) Major companies are nowadays surviving because of the strong supply chain system. (II) Supply chain comprises of logistics, retailers and distributers. Conclusions: (I) Retailers play most important role because they interact with customers on first hand. (II) If an organization has strong logistics, then product can easily be available to the customers in such an era of competition. Correct Answer Only conclusion I follows

Strong supply chain system is responsible for survival of major companies. It has also been said that 3 things comprise of supply chain, logistics, retailers, distributors. The first conclusion follows as it explains the importance of retailers and how they contribute in the supply chain. The second conclusion cannot follow as it talks about 'competition', which has neither been mentioned neither can be inferred from the two statements. 

Related Questions

Two statements are followed by three Conclusions I, II and III. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You are to decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn from the given statements and indicate your answer accordingly. Statements: I. Milk supply in Maharashtra was badly hit after thousands of dairy farmers launched a protest on Monday, demanding better price and subsidy of Rs 5 per litre. Tankers supplying milk to major cities including Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, Nashik and others were blocked early morning leading to sudden crisis.  II. The agriculture ministry had mooted a proposal asking railways to make milk available at railway stations and at the meeting, sources said representatives from Amul India suggested that the national transporter could provide stalls to dairy companies or cooperatives where they could sell their products.  Conclusions: I. Representatives of Amul India and food safety body FSSAI are willing to discuss issues and concerns of the dairy sector in the backdrop of the farmers agitation in Maharashtra that had led to severe shortage of milk in the state.  II. The farmers' groups and Maharashtra Kisan Sabha, are demanding a GST waiver on butter and milk powder apart from the subsidy. III. Railways is drawing up a plan to make milk available at railway stations across the country to promote its consumption.