Statement I : James Prinsep, an officer in the mint of the East India Company, deciphered Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts which were used in the earliest inscriptions and coins Statement I : James Prinsep found that most of the scripts mentioned a king refer

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 3 (CAPF/2014)

Statement I : James Prinsep, an officer in the mint of the East India Company, deciphered Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts which were used in the earliest inscriptions and coins
Statement I : James Prinsep found that most of the scripts mentioned a king referred to as Piyadassi—meaning ‘pleasant to behold’

question_subject: 

History

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,49,44,33,49,11,0

keywords: 

{'piyadassi': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'kharosthi scripts': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'earliest inscriptions': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'brahmi': [2, 1, 0, 2], 'james prinsep': [0, 0, 0, 3], 'king': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'east india': [2, 0, 2, 12]}

Option 1: Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.

This option suggests that both statements I and II are true, and that statement II provides a correct explanation for statement I. Statement I states that James Prinsep, an officer in the mint of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts used in early inscriptions and coins. Statement II states that James Prinsep found that most of the scripts mentioned a king referred to as Piyadassi, meaning `pleasant to behold`.

Option 2: Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.

This option suggests that both statements I and II are true, but statement II does not provide a correct explanation for statement I. In this case, James Prinsep deciphered the scripts, and most of the scripts did mention a king referred to as Piyadassi, but there is no evidence to suggest that statement II directly explains statement I.

Option 3: Statement I is true but Statement II is false.

This option suggests that statement I is true, indicating that James Prinsep deciphered the scripts, but statement II is false, meaning that James Prinsep did not find