Statements : I. Every minister is a student. II. Every student is inexperienced. Inferences : A. Every minister is inexperienced. B. Some inexperienced are students. Codes

Both inferences follow, so the answer is C. Here is why.

Statement I says every minister belongs to the class of students. Statement II says every student is inexperienced. Chain them: every minister is inexperienced. So inference A follows. This is a straightforward syllogism of the AAA-1 (Barbara) form.

For inference B, take statement II: all students are inexperienced. Conversion of an A-type proposition gives a valid partial converse, that some inexperienced are students. So B follows as well, under the conventional reading that the class of students is not empty.

• Option A accepts A but misses B.
• Option B accepts B but misses A.
• Option D is wrong because both inferences are derivable.

Core concept: categorical syllogism and immediate inference (conversion). On the Mains side, this kind of precise chaining of premises is the same discipline needed to argue governance and ethics questions without overreaching.

Trap: Aspirants reject B by thinking that 'all S are I' gives no information about I and S in reverse. Only a partial (some) converse is valid, and that is enough here.