NIMCET 2026 — Reasoning PYQ

To determine the valid conclusion, we must represent the scenario using logical propositions.

Step 1: Formalize the Premises

• Let $C$ be the proposition: "Shailaja is meditating at Crossroads."

• Let $V$ be the proposition: "Shailaja is violating the wellness centre rule."

We know that Crossroads allows a maximum of 1 hour, and Shailaja has spent at least 1.5 hours there. Therefore, if she is at Crossroads, she is necessarily violating the rule:

$$C⟹V$$

Step 2: Evaluate the Conclusion

A logical statement is valid if it is the contrapositive of the original conditional statement. The contrapositive of $C⟹V$ is:

$$\neg V⟹\neg C$$

Translating this back into natural language:

• $\neg V$: "Shailaja is not violating the wellness centre rule."

• $\neg C$: "Shailaja is not meditating at Crossroads."

Conclusion Analysis:

• Option 4 states: "If Shailaja is not violating the wellness centre rule, she is not meditating at Crossroads." This matches the contrapositive logic derived above ($\neg V⟹\neg C$).

• Options 1, 2, and 3 introduce assumptions or external factors not supported by the strict logical premises provided in the question.

Correct Answer:

The valid conclusion is Option 4.