UG-CLAT entrance exam Question Bank Solutions for Legal Reasoning

Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. 

This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.

Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct: 

Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. 

This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.

Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

An essential medicine, ‘Formula A’, is used to treat cancer, and there is only one company engaged in its manufacture. If this is true, then, based on the author’s reasoning in the passage above:

Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. 

This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.

Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

The state removes all price restrictions on an essential medicine. Pharmaceutical companies start selling that medicine at a price nearly 5 times its earlier price. In such a situation, based on the author’s reasoning above:

Directions: Read the statements and presume that whatever statements given are true. On the basis of that, choose the most appropriate conclusion(s) given below.

Statements: Some rats are cows. All cows are animals.

Conclusions:

I. All rats are animals
II. Some animals are rats

Directions: Read the statements and presume that whatever statements given are true.

On the basis of that, choose the most appropriate conclusion(s) given below.

Statements:
All the students are young. All the teens are young. Some men are teens.

Conclusions:
I. Some students are teens.
II. Some young are students.
III. Some young are men.

Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. 

This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.

Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

The state places a very low price for the sale of essential medicine, which is lower than the price of the imported ingredients used to make that medicine. What, according to the author, would be the effect of setting such a low price? 

Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. 

This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.

Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

The pharmaceutical industry has been asking the government to raise the prices of certain drugs for a long time but has not received a response. Why, according to the author, could this be? 

The highest law officer in India is the

Legal Principle: Nothing is an ‘offence’ if committed by a child below seven years of age. Fact Situation: Adil, aged six years, is a student of class one. He placed his sharpened pencil on the bench with its pointed end up when his classmate Ajay stood up to answer a question from the teacher. Ajay gets hurt when he sits on the pencil and Adil and his friends have a good laugh. Ajay’s father, on seeing his son injured when he returns home, wants action against Adil.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Which is the oldest Code of Law in India?

Indian Parliament is based on the Principle of

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision to implement the quota for other backward classes (OBCs) in higher educational institutions. The court, however, excluded the  "creamy layer" from being a beneficiary. The reason is:

The given contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given. 

You have to choose a decision with reasons

Principles
1. The owner of land has an absolute interest in the property including the contents over and under the property.
2. Water flowing below your land is not yours though you can use it.
3. Any construction on your land belongs to you.
4. All mineral resources below the land belong to the State. Facts There is a subterranean water flow under Suresh's land surface. Suresh constructed a huge reservoir and drew all subterranean water to the reservoir. As a result, the wells of all adjacent property owners have gone dry. They demanded that either Suresh must demolish the reservoir or share the reservoir water with them.

Proposed Decision
(a) Suresh need not demolish the reservoir.
(b) Suresh has to demolish the reservoir.
(c) Suresh has to share the water with his neighbours.
(d) The Government can take over the reservoir.

Possible reasons
(i) Water cannot be captured by one person for his personal use.
(ii) The Government must ensure the equitable distribution of water.
(iii) Whatever is under Suresh's land may be used by him.
(iv) Suresh has to respect the rights of others regarding water.
Your decision with the reason

The given contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given. 

You have to choose a decision with reasons
2. Principles
1. The owner of land has an absolute interest in the property including the contents over and under the property.
2. Water flowing below your land is not yours though you can use it.
3. Any construction on your land belongs to you.
4. All mineral resources below the land belong to the State. Facts There is a subterranean water flow under Suresh's land surface. Suresh constructed a huge reservoir and drew all subterranean water to the reservoir. As a result, the wells of all adjacent property owners have gone dry. They demanded that either Suresh must demolish the reservoir or share the reservoir water with them.

Proposed Decision
(a) Suresh need not demolish the reservoir.
(b) Suresh has to demolish the reservoir.
(c) Suresh has to share the water with his neighbours.
(d) The Government can take over the reservoir.
Possible reasons
(i) Water cannot be captured by one person for his personal use.
(ii) The Government must ensure the equitable distribution of water.
(iii) Whatever is under Suresh's land may be used by him.
(iv) Suresh has to respect the rights of others regarding water.

International Law is the law between sovereign states. A sovereign is a supreme authority not bound by legal constraints. Which of the following is a correct derivation from the above? 

This question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given. Choose the correct decision 

Principles:
(1) On the death of husband, the widow shall inherit the property of her deceased husband along with children equally.
(2) A widow can not claim the property of the deceased if on the date when the question of succession opens, she has remarried.
(3) A female acquiring property in any way has the absolute title to the property. Apply the above three principles and decide the case of the following fact situation:
Facts: When Sudhir died, he had 1/3rd share of the family property, which the three brothers Rudhir, Sudhir, and Yasu inherited from their father, B. Sudhir died on September 23' 2006 without having any issue. The widow of Sudhir, Ms. Win remarried on January 1, 2007. Rudhir and Yasu refused 'Win' the share from Sudhir's portion when Win claimed the entire property belonging to Sudhir on January 30, 2007. Select your decision from the possible decisions given in list 1 and the appropriate reason from the indicated reasons given in list H given below:

List I - Decisions
(a) The win cannot inherit the property of Sudhir
(b) The win can inherit the property of Sudhir

List II - Reasons
(i) The win does not belong to the family
(ii) Win was remarried
(iii) Her claim was on the date of Sudhir's death
(iv) Her claim was submitted after she was remarried

Your decision and reason
Shade the right decision with reason from the following

________ are words, which appear innocent, but have a latent defamatory meaning.

Assault and nuisance are

‘A’ by cutting the moorings of a boat in which a man and women were sitting, caused in them fear for life. He is liable for

The display of articles in a show room indicating their prices  amounts to

An idol of Lord Krishna in a temple is