Statement I : Ashoka called the Third Buddhist Council in 252 BC at Pataliputra and it was there that the Buddhist Church became divided into two sectsthe Hinayana and the Mahayana. Statement I : Kanishka called the Fourth Buddhist Council at Kundalvana n

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 123 (CAPF/2013)

Statement I : Ashoka called the Third Buddhist Council in 252 BC at Pataliputra and it was there that the Buddhist Church became divided into two sects—the Hinayana and the Mahayana.
Statement I : Kanishka called the Fourth Buddhist Council at Kundalvana near Srinagar and Vasumitra was believed to have acted as President.

question_subject: 

History

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,78,66,16,40,10,78

keywords: 

{'third buddhist council': [2, 0, 0, 1], 'fourth buddhist council': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'buddhist church': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'mahayana': [1, 0, 0, 2], 'ashoka': [6, 1, 2, 3], 'sects': [0, 0, 0, 6], 'kundalvana': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'kanishka': [4, 0, 0, 1], 'hinayana': [3, 0, 0, 2], 'srinagar': [2, 0, 3, 1]}

Option 1: Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I- This option states that both statements are true and Statement II explains Statement I correctly. However, this is not the correct option.

Option 2: Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I- This option states that both statements are true, but Statement II does not explain Statement I correctly. This is the correct option.

Option 3: Statement I is true but Statement II is false- This option states that Statement I is true, but Statement II is false. However, both statements are actually true, so this option is incorrect.

Option 4: Statement I is false but Statement II is true- This option states that Statement I is false, but Statement II is true. However, Statement I is actually true. Therefore, this option is also incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer is option 2. Both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.