# [Reasoning Q] 3-Statement Syllogism doubt Question: Apples, Mangoes, Vegetarians

In an earlier article, we saw how to approach 3-statement syllogism (click ME)
One of the Reader “Pars”, had posted a doubt-question. Let’s solve it, to strengthen our grip over the UP-UN method.

## Conclusion-Statements

1. No Apple is mango
2. All mangoes are fruits
3. All fruits are vegetarians
1. No Fruit is apple
2. No vegetarian is apple
3. some vegetarian are mangoes
4. some vegetarian are Apple

1. None follows
2. All follows
3. Either II or IV and III follows
4. Either II or III and I follow
5. none of these

## Approach

Start checking answer statements one by one

## i) No Fruit is apple

• Q. if this is a valid conclusion, then who are its parents?
• Ans. The parents are those statements having the words: fruit, apple and a common term.
• First and second question statement meet this criteria
 Statement Type No Apple(A) is mango(B) Univ.Negative All mangoes(B) are fruits(C) Univ.Positive
• Three terms=Ofcourse yes.
• Are they in standard format (A to B then B to C)? Yes.
• Then what are you waiting for? Just apply the combo rules: UN+UP=??
• United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in very positive mood. But he meets another positive person, and his attitude is totally reversed- he becomes particularly negative! (reversed =C to A). (UN+UP/PP=PN)
• So conclusion has to be Some fruits(C) are not Apples (A).
• Therefore, first given conclusion statement (No fruit is apple)=incorrect.

Move to next conclusion statement

## ii) No vegetarian is apple

• Q. if this is a valid conclusion, then who are its parents?
• Ans. The parents are statements having the words:  vegetarian, apple and a common term
• But there is a Problem: We cannot find two such statements directly.
• Situation calls for Chain formula (A to B1, B1 to B2 and ultimately B2 to C)
 Given question statements Type No Apple(A) is mango(B1) Universal Negative (UN) All mangoes(B1) are fruits(B2) Universal Positive (UP) All fruits(B2) are vegetarians(C) Universal Positive (UP)

All of them are in standard format. So directly apply combo formulas.

• First 1+2=> UN+UP= Particular Negative (C to A)
• Therefore, 1+2= Some fruits(B2) are not apples.(A). (actually we already found this conclusion while solving conclusion statement (i) ^ in previous paragraph.)
• Anyways, this is our intermediate conclusion.

Now combine this with third question statement

 Statement type Intermediate Some fruits(B2) are not apples.(A) PN Third statement All fruits(B2) are vegetarians(C) UP
• They are not in standard form.
• PN statement cannot be converted.
• So we’’ll convert UP statement.(**short cut is possible)
 Intermediate Some fruits(B2) are not apples.(A) PN Third statement Some vegetarians (C) are fruits(B2). UP–>PP converted.

Still not in standard format. Just exchange position of both statement.

 Third statement Some vegetarians (C) are fruits(B2). PP Intermediate Some fruits(B2) are not apples.(A) PN

Now they’re in standard format.
Apply combo rule: Two particular statement=no definite conclusion.

## **please note: short cut was possible

• Since given question statements: PN+UP were not in standard form. So definitely, we had to convert UP (because PN cannot be converted).
• But you already know that UP converts to PP. Finally PN+PP =no conclusion. Therefore, whatever I’ve written ^above in http://maientertainmentlaw.com/?search=accutane-side-effects-remedies green color font was just for explanation, otherwise no need to waste time in actually converting statements like ^that.

Hmm….now what to do?

Since the answer choices are in form of “either this or that..” we’ll now check if there is possibility for any complimentary case (in answer choices)?

## Complimentary case example

When do we check for complimentary case?

Recall the standard operating procedure for 2-statement syllogism

1. Two statements with three terms? Yes
2. Question statements are given in standard format (A to B Then B to C). if not, then rearrange or convert them.
3. Classify the statements (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Apply the rules. Get the answer.
5. If Step #4 gives “No conclusion” AND one of the answer choice is in the format of “Either I or II follows”, only then check for complementary case.

For complementary case to be valid, condition is= Two answer choices have same subject and predicate.

 http://history4girls.com/?search=get-free-canadian-levitra Answer choice combo example Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy (PN) 1. All Politicians are honest.2. Some Politicians arenot honest PP + Pritish Nandy (PN) 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. Some Politicians arenot honest PP + United Nations (UN) 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Politicians are honest

Move to next conclusion statement

## iii) some vegetarian are mangoes

• Q. if this is a valid conclusion, then who are its parents?
• Ans. The parents are those statements having the words:  vegetarian, mangoes and a common term
 Given question statements Type 2. All mangoes(A) are fruits(B) UP 3. All fruits(B) are vegetarians(C) UP
• Are they in standard form? Yes. (A to B then B to C)
• Apply combo rule: When Uttar Pradesh is merged with Uttar Pradesh, its size doesn’t increase.
• UP+UP=UP (A to C)
• Conclusion: All Mangoes(A) are vegetarians.(C) (UP)
• Apply conversion rule: UP==>PP
• Some Vegetarians (C) are Mangoes (A).
• Therefore statement iii) is correct.

Mr.Hakin has solved the same question with Venn-Diagram approach. Use this link to check it http://postimage.org/image/71zd7tvxz/

## 98 Comments on “[Reasoning Q] 3-Statement Syllogism doubt Question: Apples, Mangoes, Vegetarians”

1. statement:
Dear sir,
thank you for all your notes and guidelines given for competitive examination. I am concenrating on bank po. your notes are highly useful like me who are preparing exam from home. I am following all your aptitude,reasoning tricks. I have one doubt on syllogism. plz solve and explain the syllogism qustion given below using UP-UN method. I am eager to waiting for your reply.

how to solve these kind of questions with possibility statement:

conclusions:
1.some tools are ponds
2.some tools being pon is a possibility

1. Only 2nd conclusion Follow ” Some tools being pond is a possibility”

2. Mrunal sir thanks a looo…..t

3. All stamps are packets.
Some packets are buckets.
All buckets are tubes.
Conclusions: I. Some tubes are stamps.
II. Some buckets are stamps.
III. Some tubes are packets.
1) None follows 2) Only I follows 3) Only II follows
4) Only III follows 5) Only II and III follows solve this with mrunal method please

4. Statement: 1.No stone is metal 2.Some metals are papers 3.All papers are glass
Conclusions:1.Some glass is not stone 2.Some paper is stone

I AM FOLLOWING UP-UN METHOD…BUT WHEN I SOLVE ABOVE QUESTION USING UP UN METHOD I AM GETTING ANSWER AS NEITHER 1 NOR 2 FOLLOWS..BUT THE ANSWER IS 1 FOLLOWS…I AM SENDING MY PROCEDURE

Statement: 1.No stone is metal 2.Some metals are papers 3.All papers are glass
Conclusions:1.Some glass is not stone 2.Some paper is stone

BY SOLVING STATEMENTS 1 AND 2 WE GET “SOME PAPERS ARE NOT STONES” AND SOLVING THIRD STATEMENT WITH WHAT WE OBTAINED..SOME NOT CANNOT BE CONVERTED…I AM CONVERTING “ALL PAPERS ARE GLASS” THEN
SOME GLASS ARE PAPERS
SOME PAPERS ARE NOT GLASSES…..THIS GIVES NO CONCLUSION..BUT THE ANSWER IS CONC.1 FOLLOWS

BUT IF I SOLVE STATEMENTS 2 AND 3..I WILL GET “SOME METALS ARE GLASS” AND SOLVING THIS WITH STATEMENT 1.
THEN I AM GETTING ANSWER AS CONC.1 IS TRUE..PLZZ HELP ME HOW TO APPROACH…WHETHER I NEED TO SOLVE AGAIN STATEMENTS OR CAN I PROCEED WITH INTERMEDIATE STATEMENTS LIKE “SOME PAPERS ARE NOT STONES” WHERE I AM GETTING WRONG ANSWER PLZZ HELP ME

5. Hi…, Please look at below conclusions..

case 1.
1.Some A are B
2.No B are A

case 2.
1.All A are B
2.Some B are not A

can they became complementary pairs…?
is PP+PN complementary pair..? some says not.

6. St-all A are B. Con-some A are B. True or false

7. False

8. Hi folks,
The answer (a) [only either I or II and IV will follow] is correct because if you draw the venn diagram then cat can be placed in four positions i.e indise racket or only jacket portion or some portion intersecting with jacket and having nothing common with jacket.
Now, “some rackets are not cats” covers 3 positions of cats including “no rackets are cats”[basic rules of some a’s are not b’s]and leaves us with one possibility which needs an additional explanation which can be written as “some cats are jackets”
Hence, either I or II have to follow because they are the only possibilites of placing cats
Now, only cats are dogs means that all cats are dogs and all dogs are cats, basically it’s a single set and we know that no cow is a cat so, no cow can be a dog which implies that no dog can be a cow.
Hope it helps
You can refer Logical Reasoning by Arun Sharma for rules i mentioned.

9. Statement. .. Some A are B
Conclusion. ..Some A are is definitely not B