Statement I : For the three years after 2007-08 Annual Budget in India, there was practically no increase in tax/GDP ratio. Statement I : At the same time, government expenditure jumped noticeably.

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 125 (CAPF/2013)

Statement I : For the three years after 2007-08 Annual Budget in India, there was practically no increase in tax/GDP ratio.
Statement I : At the same time, government expenditure jumped noticeably.

question_subject: 

Economics

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,21,26,18,21,1,7

keywords: 

{'government expenditure': [1, 0, 0, 1], 'annual budget': [0, 1, 3, 1], 'gdp ratio': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'increase': [3, 1, 10, 35], 'tax': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'india': [8, 1, 7, 13]}

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 statement II is the correct explanation for statement I. However, this is not accurate. While statement I states that there was no increase in the tax/GDP ratio for three years after the 2007-08 Annual Budget in India, statement II mentions that government expenditure increased noticeably. These two statements are independent and not directly related. Statement II cannot provide a logical explanation for why there was no increase in the tax/GDP ratio.

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

This option suggests that statement I is true, but statement II is false. Since statement I states that there was no increase in the tax/GDP ratio for three years, and statement II mentions that government expenditure increased noticeably, both statements can be true independently of each other. Therefore, this option is valid.

Option-4: Statement I is false but Statement II is true.

This option suggests that statement I is false, but statement II is true. However, statement I can indeed be true without contradicting statement II. It is possible for there to be no increase in the tax/GDP ratio for three years