Let us represent the statements being correct as X, Y, Z, and W, and the statements being incorrect as $
eg X,
eg Y,
eg Z,and
eg W$.
According to the question, the given relations can be written as logical implications:
- If X is incorrect, then Z is incorrect: $
eg X \implies
eg Z2.IfYisincorrect,thenWiscorrect:
eg Y \implies W3.IfWiscorrect,thenXisincorrect:W \implies
eg X$
By combining these three relations, we can form a continuous chain of implications:
$
eg Y \implies W \implies
eg X \implies
eg Z$
In logic, the contrapositive of a statement A⟹B is $
eg B \implies
eg A,andbothalwaysholdtheexactsametruthvalue.Takingthecontrapositiveofourentirechainofimplications(reversingtheorderandnegatingeachterm),weget:Z \implies X \implies
eg W \implies Y$
Now, let us evaluate the given conclusions based on this contrapositive chain:
Statement I: If X is correct, then so is Y.
From our contrapositive chain, we can clearly see that X⟹Y. This means that if X is correct, Y must definitely be correct. Therefore, Statement I is correct.
Statement II: If Z is correct, then it is not necessary that Y is correct.
From our contrapositive chain, we can see that Z⟹Y. This means that if Z is correct, it is absolutely necessary that Y is correct. Therefore, Statement II is incorrect.
Since only Statement I is correct, the correct option is A.