Question

"Tata Steel, one of the biggest steel makers in the world, was born in Jamshedpur. The very success of Tata Steel could lead to its failure in the future and hence the challenge for Tata Steel is to recognise its strengths that make it successful in initial conditions and stick to them."

1. This is a valid conclusion.
2. The conclusion is contrary to the ideas described in the passage.
3. This is an internally contradictory conclusion.

• A. 1 only
• B. 2 only
• C. 3 only
• D. 1 and 2

Hint:

Compare the warning ("success could lead to failure") with the fix suggested ("stick to the same old strengths") and see whether the two sit together logically.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The passage first warns that Tata Steel's own success could turn into failure later on. It then gives advice: recognise the strengths that worked in the early days and stick to them. We need to check whether this advice actually fits with the warning that came right before it.

Step 2: Key Approach:
A statement is internally contradictory when its own two parts pull against each other, when following the advice it gives would actually bring about the very problem it just warned against.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The passage says success can lead to failure. This usually happens because markets, competitors and technology move on, while a firm that clings to the exact strengths and habits that worked in its early years fails to adapt and gets left behind. Yet in the same breath, the passage tells Tata Steel to recognise those very early strengths and stick to them. If rigidly sticking to old strengths is part of what turns success into failure, then recommending exactly that is not a fix, it is a repeat of the risk the sentence just flagged. That is what makes the conclusion internally contradictory: it warns against one thing and then prescribes that same thing as the solution.
Statement 1 fails because a conclusion cannot simply be called valid when its own recommendation undercuts its own warning.
Statement 2 fails because the issue is not that the conclusion disagrees with the passage's ideas from outside, it disagrees with itself, so "contrary to the passage" is the wrong description of the flaw.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Only the internal contradiction accurately describes the conclusion. \[ \boxed{\text{3 only}} \]