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

Step 1: Classify statement 1.
Statement 1 says Yuvraj hit 6 sixes in an over and this gave him the fastest 50 in any form of cricket. Both the six sixes and the record time for the 50 are recorded, checkable numbers, anyone can look up the scorecard and confirm them. This is a Fact.

Step 2: Classify statement 2.
Statement 2 claims India would have lost if Yuvraj had not played. Nobody can verify a match that never happened, there is no scorecard for it. This is not built from known match data through logical steps either, it is really a personal call about how the game "would have" gone, so it carries the writer's opinion more than a reasoned conclusion. This is a Judgment.

Step 3: Classify statement 3.
Statement 3 says Yuvraj's innings pushed India to a score that "would have otherwise been difficult to reach." Just like statement 2, this is a value-laden claim about a hypothetical alternate outcome, not a verifiable fact and not a tightly reasoned inference from stated evidence, it reflects the writer's assessment of how hard the target was. This is a Judgment.

Step 4: Classify statement 4.
Statement 4 says Yuvraj won the Man of the Match award. This is an official, publicly recorded outcome, it can be checked against the match records. This is a Fact.

Step 5: Combine the four labels and match to the options.
Putting the four classifications in order gives F, J, J, F.

Step 6: Final Answer.
The sequence FJJF matches option (c).
\[ \boxed{\text{FJJF}} \]