Consider the following statements : A) All artists are whimsical. B) Some artists are drug addicts. C) Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. From the above three statements it may be concluded that

The correct answer is C, and it follows directly from combining statements A and B. Statement B says some artists are drug addicts. Statement A says every artist is whimsical. So the artists who are drug addicts must also be whimsical, which means some drug addicts are whimsical. This is a simple syllogism where the middle term 'artists' links the two statements.

Why the others fail:

• A: Nothing says artists are frustrated. Statement C talks about frustrated people, not artists, so there is no bridge between them.
• B: Statement C says frustrated people are 'prone to' becoming addicts. That describes a tendency, not a universal rule, so it does not justify 'all frustrated people are drug addicts'.
• D: Statement A runs one way only. All artists are whimsical does not mean all whimsical people are artists, let alone frustrated.

The concept is handling 'all', 'some' and 'prone to' correctly in syllogisms. This reasoning skill underpins the CSAT logical reasoning section and helps in Mains essay and ethics answers, where overgeneralised conclusions cost marks.

Trap: Aspirants read 'prone to' as 'will be' and pick B, or they assume that because whimsical and frustrated sound alike, D must follow.