Consider the following arguments: A) All poets are idlers. B) No poets are idlers. Which of the following conclusion can logically be drawn?

Statements A and B are contraries. Both are universal propositions, so they cannot both be true, but they can both be false. The correct option is C.

Option D is wrong because if all poets are idlers, then no poet can be a non-idler, so B must be false. The two cannot be true together.

Option C is right because the middle ground is possible. If some poets are idlers and some are not, both A and B are false.

Options A and B each describe one possible truth value pattern. A true with B false is possible, and B true with A false is possible. But the question asks for the relationship the paper tests, which is the contrary relation of universal propositions. That relation is captured by 'both can be false' rather than by a single pattern.

This sits in the classical square of opposition, which is a standard Logical Reasoning topic. The same logic is useful in Mains GS-IV for analysing absolutist claims.

Trap: aspirants often choose D, thinking both statements can be 'true' because they sound like opposites. Contraries never both hold; subcontraries (some-type statements) can both hold.