If it is false that ‘no person can operate an industrial plant for the purpose of any scheduled industry in an air pollution control area without the prior consent of the State Board’, then, which of the following may be validly inferred?
Some persons obtained the consent of the State Board but did not run a plant as industry in an air pollution control area
Someone did not obtain the consent of the State Board but ran a plant commercially in an air pollution control area
The State Board is the only authority to give authorization for opening industry in restricted air pollution control area
Some areas are under the jurisdiction of the State Board
Answer is Wrong!
Answer is Right!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2011
The question states that this statement is FALSE. The negation of a universal affirmative statement (“All A are B”) is a particular negative statement (“Some A are not B”).
So, the negation of “All persons operating X require Y” is “Some persons operating X do NOT require Y”.
Let’s apply this to the original terms: “Some persons operating an industrial plant for a scheduled industry in an air pollution control area do not have the prior consent of the State Board”. This implies that there exists at least one person who is operating such a plant in such an area but did not obtain the required consent.
Looking at the options:
A) Some persons obtained the consent of the State Board but did not run a plant… This describes people who got consent but didn’t operate. The negation deals with people who *are operating* but *didn’t get consent*.
B) Someone did not obtain the consent of the State Board but ran a plant commercially in an air pollution control area. This matches the negation directly. “Someone” means “Some person”, “did not obtain the consent” matches “do not have the prior consent”, and “ran a plant commercially in an air pollution control area” matches “operating an industrial plant for a scheduled industry in an air pollution control area”.
C) The State Board is the only authority… This goes beyond the scope of the original statement, which only mentions obtaining consent *from* the State Board, not that they are the sole authority.
D) Some areas are under the jurisdiction of the State Board. The original statement implies the existence of such areas and the Board’s authority over them, but the *negation* of the specific rule does not necessarily *infer* the existence of these areas. The negation focuses on a violation of the rule.
Therefore, the only valid inference from the falsity of the original statement is that there are persons operating without consent, as described in option B.