# Introduction

• SBI loves asking 4 statement syllogism questions in its PO exam. (usually 5 questions.)
• In 2012, UPSC asked 3 statement syllogism in CSAT paper II, and nothing prevents UPSC from asking 4-statement syllogism in future, under its BackbreakingTM move.
• Therefore, anyone who doesn’t want to dig his/her grave in SBI or UPSC, should thoroughly prepare syllogism.
• Good news is, no matter whether they ask 2 statement syllogism, 3 statement syllogism, 4 statement syllogism or 50 statement syllogism, our UP-UN method continues to work.
• However, to quickly and accurately solved 4 statement syllogism, first you must master earlier techniques
 Two statement syllogism Click me to learn Three statement syllogism Click me to learn

# Recap: 2 statement

Whenever facing two statement syllogism, our standard operating procedure is:

1. Two statements, must have only three terms
2. Classify them into UP, UN, PP or PN.
3. Two statements must be in the Format A to B then B to C, if not then apply the conversion rules
 Type of Statement Valid Conversion Path Universal Positive (UP)All cats(A) are dogs (B) Only PPSome Cats (A) are dogs. (B)Some dogs (B) are cats. (A) A to BB to A Universal Negative (UN)No Cats(A) are dogs (B) PN :Some Dogs (B) are not Cats (A). B to A UN: No Dogs (B) are cats. (A) Particular Positive (PP)Some cats (A) are dogs (B) Only PP: Some dogs (B) are cats(A) B to A Particular Negative (PN) Not possible. –
1. Now apply the combo rules. Unless specifically mentioned, conversion is A to C.

## Yes conclusion combos

1. UP’s politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11th hour. (UP+PP/PN=NO)
2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular)(UN+UN/PN=NO)
3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody. (first statement is PN=NO, Irrespective of second statement.)
4. Two-negatives=no conclusion.
5. Two particulars=no conclusion.
1. If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then its size doesn’t increase. (UP+UP=UP)
2. If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then size increases and it becomes United Nations. (UP+UN=UN)
3. 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)
4. When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe.(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN)

# Complimentary case

• Incase you get a no-conclusion combo, BUT any of the answer choice says “either ** or ** follows.” In that case you’ve to check for complimentary cases. (this is critical for SBI PO, since often the 4 statement conclusion have complimentary case situation).
• For complimentary case to be valid, two conditions must be met:

Condition #1: Two answer choices have same subject and predicate.

 Applicable Not applicable Some Politicians are honest.No Politicians are honest Some Politicians are honest.No Honest are Politicians. Because both have common subject (politician) and common predicate (honest) In first statement, subject=Politician but in second statement, subject= Honest. Hence complemantary case not possible.

Condition#2:  The answer choice combo must be either of these three

 Answer choice combo example Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy (PN) All Politicians are honest.Some Politicians arenot honest PP + Pritish Nandy (PN) Some Politicians are honestSome Politicians arenot honest PP + United Nations (UN) Some Politicians are honest.No Politicians are honest

When these two conditions are met, then answer would be “Either (I) or (II) follows.” (to see actual question related to the complimentary pair situation, check the case number 4 and 5 given in the later part of this article.)

# Approaching 4 statement syllogism

• Here you pick up conclusion one at a time, find its parents.
• Apply chain formula and see if it leads to the given conclusion. (pretty much the same thing that we do in three statement syllogism click me)
• Anyways without much ado, let’s start solving 4-statement syllogism questions from SBI PO 2010 exam

# Case#1 : Stick, lamps, power, dresses, shirts

This is a really cheap and easy question.

 Question statements Subject predicate Type 1 1. some sticks are lamps PP 2 2. some flowers are lamps PP 3 3. some lamps are dresses PP 4 4. all dresses are shirts UP conclusion statements 1 some shirts are sticks PP 2 some shirts are flowers PP 3 some flowers are sticks PP 4 some dresses are sticks PP

1. None follows
2. Only 1
3. Only 2
4. Only 3
5. Only 4.

## Approach

• You can start with one conclusion at a time, find its parents and then apply combo rules.
• But if you look at it carefully: 3 out of 4 question statements are Particular Positive (PP). So if you pick any two of them, PP+PP=no conclusion.
• Fourth question statement is UP.  UP+PP=PP if this is intermediate conclusion, it won’t give any final conclusion when paired with any other question statement because PP + PP = no conclusion.
• If situation requires you to convert UP (=can only be converted into PP), then again PP+PP=no conclusion.
• So with that thought in mind, check four conclusion statement, you’ll see none of their parents can give conclusion.
• Therefore answer is (A) none follow.

# Case#2: Bird, Horse, Tiger, Lion & Monkey

 Question statement Subject predicate Type 1 All Birds are Horses UP 2 all Horses are Tigers UP 3 Some Tigers are Lions PP 4 Some Lions are Monkeys PP conclusion statements 1 Some Tigers are Horses PP 2 Some Monkeys are Birds PP 3 Some Tigers are Birds PP 4 Some Monkeys are Horses PP

1. Only 1 and 3
2. Only 1, 2 and 3
3. Only 2, 3 and 4
4. Only 1, 2, 3 and 4
5. None follows.

## Approach

• As you can see conclusion #3 is reappearing in option A to D. so first I’ll check conclusion #3. If it turns out to be false then my effort is saved, I’ll directly tick (E).

## Checking conclusion #3

 3 Some Tigers are Birds PP

If this conclusion is valid, who’re its parents?

 1 All Birds_A are Horses_B UP 2 all Horses_B are Tigers_C UP
• Ok this is in standard format: A to B then B to C.
• Apply combo rule: when UP is merged in UP, its size doesn’t increase (UP+UP=UP, A to C). so my conclusion is All birds_A are tigers_C. I’ll reconvert this (UP to PP), so some tigers are birds. This matches with the conclusion number #3.
• So conclusion #3 is valid. So option E is eliminated.
• Now I’ll have to check other conclusions as well. Anyways, now let’s check all other conclusions in serial order (1, 2, 4)

## Checking conclusion #1

 Concl.1 Some Tigers are Horses PP

If this is legit, who’re its parents?

Just one:

 Q.Statement 2 all Horses are Tigers UP

I can convert this! (UP to PP) so some tigers are horses. So conclusion #1=valid.

## Checking conclusion #2

 2 Some Monkeys are Birds PP

If this is valid, who’re its parents?

 1 All Birds are Horses UP 2 all Horses are Tigers UP 3 Some Tigers are Lions PP 4 Some Lions are Monkeys PP

I’ll reorder so it makes more sense

 4 Some Lions are Monkeys PP 3 Some Tigers are Lions PP 2 all Horses are Tigers UP 1 All Birds are Horses UP
• Ok we are facing 4 statement chain. We’ve to pick two at a time get intermediate conclusions, pair them with next statement and keep moving.
• But today is my lucky day, you see first two statements are PP + PP= no conclusion. So we can’t proceed further. And answer choice doesn’t contain any “either or”. So we don’t need to check complimentary case either. That means conclusion #2 is invalid. Our precious time and effort is saved.

So far we’ve done following

 Conclusion number Valid/not? 3 Valid 1 Valid 2 Invalid.

1. Only 1 and 3
2. Only 1, 2 and 3
3. Only 2, 3 and 4
4. Only 1, 2, 3 and 4
5. None follows

Final answer (A) Only 1 and 3 follow.

# Case#3: Bench, Wall, House, Jungle, Road

 Question statement Subject predicate Type 1 Some Bench Are Wall PP 2 All Wall Are House UP 3 Some House Are Jungle PP 4 All jungle Are Road UP Conclusion Statements 1 some Roads Are Benches PP 2 Some Jungles Are Walls PP 3 Some Houses Are Benches PP 4 some Roads Are Houses PP

1. Only 1 and 2
2. Only 1 and 3
3. Only 3 and 4
4. Only 2, 3 and 4
5. None follows.

## Approach

To save time and effort, I am going to test only 2 and 4. Let’s see if I can get lucky!

## Checking conclusion statement #2

 2 Some Jungle Are Wall PP

If this is valid conclusion, who’re its parents (question statements)?

 2 All Wall Are House UP 3 Some House Are Jungle PP
• Cool, already in standard format A to B then B to C.
• And UP’s politicians hate giving particular statements so UP+PP=no conclusion.
• So conclusion #2 is invalid, that means answer choice A and D are eliminated. Let’s see what is left in the answer choices:
1. Only 1 and 2
2. Only 1 and 3
3. Only 3 and 4
4. Only 2, 3 and 4
5. None follows.

Ok now let’s check conclusion #4.

## Checking conclusion statement #4

 4 some Roads Are Houses PP

If this is valid conclusion, who are its parents (question statements)?

 3 Some House Are Jungle PP 4 All jungle Are Road UP
• Good, already in standard format: A to B then B to C. so directly apply the combo rule.
• When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe.(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN)
• PP+UP=PP. (A to C)
• Therefore my conclusion is Some Houses are roads. And PP can be converted into PP. So Some roads are houses = also valid.
• So conclusion #4 is valid. Let’s check our answer choices
1. Only 1 and 2
2. Only 1 and 3
3. Only 3 and 4
4. Only 2, 3 and 4
5. None follows.

Final answer: C, only 3 and 4 follows.

# Case#4: (Complimentary Pairs): Cups, Bottles, Jugs, Plates & Tables

 Question statement Subject predicate Type 1 All Cups are Bottles UP 2 Some Bottles are Jugs PP 3 No Jug is Plate UN 4 some Plates are tables PP Conclusion Statements 1 Some Tables are Bottles PP 2 Some Plates are Cups PP 3 No Table is Bottle UN 4 Some jugs are cups PP

1. Only 1 follows
2. Only 2
3. Only 3
4. Only 4
5. Either 1 or 3 follows.

## Approach

 1 Some Tables are Bottles PP

If conclusion 1 is valid then who’re its parents (question statements)?

 2 Some Bottles are Jugs PP 3 No Jug is Plate UN 4 some Plates are tables PP

I’ll rearrange the order

 2 Some Bottles_A are Jugs_B PP 3 No Jug_B Is Plate_C UN 4 some Plates_C are Tables_D PP
• Now it is a three statement syllogism.
• Already in standard format. So, First combine 2+3.
• PP+UN=PN. (A to C)
• Some Bottles_A are not plates_C.  (PN)
• That’s my intermediate conclusion. Now I’ll combine it with question statement number 4.
 Intermediate conclusion Some Bottles_A Are not Plate_C PN Q. statement #4 some Plates_C are Tables_D PP
• Two particulars = no conclusion.
• Ok so, conclusion #1=cannot be concluded definitely.
• But wait, look at answer choice #4: either 1 or 3 follows. So this could be a case of complimentary pairs.
• Let’s relook at conclusion statement #1 and #3.
 Subject Predicate 1 Some Tables are Bottles PP 3 No Table is Bottle UN

Apply the checklist for complimentary case.

1. Two answer choices have same subject and predicate?= YES
2. The answer choice combo must be either of these three
1. Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy (PN)
2. PP + Pritish Nandy (PN)
3. PP + United Nations (UN)

Yes, it is combo number III (PP+UN). So final answer is either 1 or 3 follows.

# Case#5: (Complimentary Pairs): Chair, Handle, Pots, Mats & Buses

 Question statements are Type 1. Some chairs are Handles PP 2. All Handles are Pots UP 3. All Pots are Mats UP 4. Some Mats are Buses PP Conclusion Statement 1. Some buses are handles PP 2. Some mats are chairs PP 3. No bus is handle UN 4. Some mats are handles PP

1. Only 1,2,3 follow
2. Only 2,3 and 4 follow
3. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 follow
4. Either 1 or 3 AND 4 follow
5. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 and 4 follow

## Approach

Take a look at c,d,e all of them contain “Either 1 or 3”. So we’ve to check for complimentary cases. Given conclusions

 1. some buses are handles pp 3. no buses is handle un
• Ok this both have some subject and predicate.
• And they’re in form of PP+UN. So, Yes, they’re fit for complimentary case= Either 1 or 3 follows. Let’s see our answer choices again:
1. Only 1,2,3 follow
2. Only 2,3 and 4 follow
3. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 follow
4. Either 1 or 3 AND 4 follow
5. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 and 4 follow
• C says “either 1 or 3 AND 2”
• We have already checked that either 1 or 3 is valid.
• Now let’s test conclusion statement number 2
 2. some Mats Are chairs PP

If this is valid then who’re its parents (question statements)?

 1. some Chairs(A) are Handles(B) PP 2. all Handles(B) are Pots(C) UP 3. all Pots(C) are Mats(D) UP

Ok now let’s pair up 1 and 2

 1. some Chairs(A) Are Handles(B) PP 2. all Handles(B) Are Pots(C) UP
• Are they in standard format A to B B to C? yes.
• Apply rules. PP + UP.
• When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe.(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN)
• Therefore, PP + UP = PP (A to C)
• Intermediate Conclusion statement is Some chairs(A) are pots(C)
• Combine intermediate conclusion with q.statement #3.
 Some chairs(A) are pots(C) PP 3. all Pots(C) are Mats(D) UP
• Are they in std. format? yes they’re in standard format, (A to C C to D)
• Apply rules. PP + UP = PP (A to D).
• Our conclusion: Some chairs (A) are mats(D)==>convert Some mats are chairs (PP to PP).
• Conclusion statement #2 said: some mats are chairs.
• Yes so conclusion statement #2 is legit. So far our situation is
1. Only 1,2,3 follow
2. Only 2,3 and 4 follow
3. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 follow
4. Either 1 or 3 AND 4 follow
5. Either 1 or 3 AND 2 and 4 follow
• Now let’s check conclusion statement #4.
 4.some mats are handles PP

Find its parents.

 2. all Handles_A Are Pots_B UP 3. all Pots_B are Mats_C UP
• 2+3= already in std format, UP+UP =UP merged with UP, size doesn’t hence.
• So UP+UP=UP (A to C) very easy. Conclusion will be All handles are mats (UP).
• But fourth conclusion is some mats are handles. No problem, we’ll convert our conclusion (rule UP–>PP).
• So, All handles are mats (UP) => Some mats are handles.
• Therefore, conclusion number 4 is also correct. Therefore Final answer: (e)  Either 1 or 3 AND 2 and 4 follow.

For more articles on reasoning and aptitude, visit Mrunal.org/aptitude

﻿

## So far 154 Comments posted

1. Aakash

Consider the following statements

1. The light bulb sprinkles only when paper gets wet.

2. The paper gets wet if pin nails.

3. If the pin nails the light bulb sprinkles.

Which of the following can be definitely concluded:

(a) If the pin nails the paper gets wet

(b) Pin nails only if light bulb sprinkles.

(c) Light Bulb sprinkles if the pin nails

(d) Light Bulb sprinkles if the paper gets wet.

P.S.:I tried solving the question through the syllogism approach. But words like “only”,”if” is puzzling me! Kindly help me out to solve such questions. Thanks

1. ABHIMANYU

a,c,d follows

2. smit

answer must be only A follows

3. Vignesh Kumar

a,c,d

2. jai

Consider following statements.
1. No politician is corrupt.
2. Some corrupt are jailed.
3. Some jailed are politicians.

Can the below statement concluded from above, pls answer with reason?
“Some jailed are not politicians” !!!

1. mohit

no…

1. APPU

YOU ARE CORRECT AYUSH

2. Ayush

yes.
its in the format A to B.B to C.
from the first two statements it can be concluded that some jailed are not politicians.
however you cant say that some politician are not jailed.

1. PRAKAH K S

Hi Ayush,

I have clarification with ur explanation. When both elements i.e “Jailed” and “politicians” are in the same statements, wht is the necessity to check with A->B & B->C. instead we can directly check III statement & conclude that some politicians are not jailed is wrong.

please correct me if I am wrong.

1. Ayush

there are 3 statements given.from 3rd statement we are not able to get the conclusion :”some jailed are not politician”.we have to look on all the conclusions from the three statements.

1. kaushal jha

we cn also check by ven diagram easily..

3. vips

very easy.. those jailed which are corrupt will not be politicians..if cant apply logic in brain, make a venn daigram

4. Rohit

true ,
Some jailed who are also corrupt are not politicians.

So your statement is correct.

5. Vijender

Statement III says some jailed are politicians…
Although some jailed are not politicians does not follow from this …
However From First two statement we can definitely conclude “Some jailed are not politicians”
Tricky question, because being in haste one may readily conclude that Some jailed are not politicians can not be concluded form III Statement…

3. XY

Hi guys.. lets solve these DMs.
1. Statements:
I. All walls are bricks.
II. Some walls are cement.
Conclusions:
a) All cement is bricks.
b) All bricks are cement.
c) Some bricks are not cement.
d) Some bricks are cement.
2. Statements:
I. Some balloons are orange.
II. All orange are toys.
Conclusions:
a) Some balloons are toys.
b) All toys are balloons.
c) Some balloons are not toys.
d) Some toys are not balloons.
My conclusion is 1. d and 2. a.
But my answers are not same as others. What is your conclusions???

1. Ayush

1. YZ

Both are correct

4. wasif

i am finding venn diagram stuff more easy,less heavy on the brain and faster! i didn’t read mrunal’s method,though i tried to.just coudn’t make my way through, with all the jargon and stuff.
i see here everyone seems so taken in by the above method.am i losing out on something by not using it?and yes i solved the examples above using venn and was like “it is so easy”.anyone?

1. krishna

Yes dude, u r right…. venn diagram method is easier…. its unnecessary & burdensome on the brain to try the above method when already we are dumped with a thousand other things to do on the list…

2. PRAKAH K S

Hi Wasif,

U r absolutely right. Wenn diagrom are working fine, when statements are straight, But I tried to apply UPSC standard questions wenn diagroms are not yielding proper results

1. ABHIMANYU

can u post those UPSC questions whr venn diagram approach is not working???

2. wasif

yes post them.it will help clear up doubts.but about last year’s UPSC questions on syllogism ,i don’t think they were tough,one could have solved them by plain logic without venn even.

3. sunny kumar

when i find 4 statetment syllolism than i some times spend bit more time solving questions via this method.but i find it easy with ven diagram.though ven diagram has got bit open risk as we can miss out on few small things..but working for me….

3. kaushal jha

m agree….

5. Ayush

how to solve questions which have conclusions like:1 some A being B is a possibility.
2 Atleast some A are B.

1. ABHIMANYU

post full question

6. shahid

SIR, I expect from u an article describing the basics of GEOGRAPHY

7. PKS

guys can anyone help…..?

Statements:
1. All teachers are graduates
2. All poets are poor
3. Some Mathematicians are poets
4. No graduate is poor

Conclusions:
1.Some Mathematicians are not Teachers
2.Some Teachers are not Mathematicians
3.No teacher is poor
4.No poet is a teacher

Find the INVALID conclusion…..

1. ABHIMANYU

1 & 2 are INVALID

1. PKS

Thnx ABHIMANYU

But there is only one invalid statement, as the answer choices of this questions were the conclusions itself…

Venn diagram results in as two conclusions to be invalid….

Using Mrunal’s method i got option 2 as valid and so the answer choice with 1…..

1. ABHIMANYU

BUt option 2 is not always true ..
same applies for option 1

1. PKS

yes ABHIMANYU…. Hence the confusion..

And as u said, Mrunal’s method does good for option 1 too….

May be something fishy with the question but I doubt, that it would be wrong…

Anyways thnx for the help…

2. vips

statement 1 is always true and venn diagram gives u correct answer in seconds//statement is incorrect /// when u draw a circle with mathematician u can cover whole of graduate circle…draw for yourself///but some mathematicians are not teachers will always be valid as those mathematicians which are poet will not be teachers…….. dimag ki batti jalao

3. vips

if u want to rttaofy then from 1, 2 and 4, no teacher is poet ie UN plus some mathematicians are poets or some poets are mathematicians pp…un+ pp =/pn with order reversed hence some mathematicians are not teachers valid conclusion

2. anurag

1 is invalid

8. PKS

Vips…
Thnku bhai…. I was stuck there…
This seems to b out of de circle thinking… 🙂

9. rama devi

SIR,
PLS TELL ME HOW TO FIND OUT PARENTS OF CONCLUSIONS

10. rama devi

SIR,PLS TELL ME HOW TO FIND OUT PARENTS FOR CONCLUSIONS..PLS EXPLAIN ME SIR

11. kanika thapar

pls can anyone help me to understand syllogism by using venn diagram

🙁

i did’nt get

12. spri

gud one!!!

13. gautam kumar

1, 3, 4 are correct while 2 doesnt follow

very easy method thank u so much sir

15. Simi

Thanks a ton..!!! I always found 4 statement syllogisms very confused when combined with either or conclusions. But now let them give any number of statement, i am so confident to solve them all.. Thanks thanks thanksss,,,,!!! 🙂

16. nitin kakkar

Thanks for this and every article you have written, really you are doing a good job .
I have some problems in sylogism possibility questions ,can you write a post on that or guide me towards some book or link .

17. neeraj

ur methods not working here..pls explain
all B are A
some C are A
all D are C
some E are B

conclusions:
1.some E are A
2.no B is D
3.some A are D

OPTIONS:
a) only 1 follows
b) 1 and 2 follows
c) 1 and either 2 or 3 follows
d)none follows

1. LUCKY

TO NEERAJ

ANS IS a) only 1st follows

1. ivan

option C
because we have either case here
which matches PP-UN case

18. ravi kumar rai

hello sir
the method for syllogism are taken but i have little confusion in complementary pairs, will you please make it clear ASAP I HAVE MY EXAM ON 26th

19. gaurav

can anyone tell me how to solve syllogism containing if and then plz…

20. gaurav

Some symbols are figures .
All symbols are graphics.
No graphics is a picture.

conclusion
1 . Some graphics are figures.
2. No symbol is a picture .

1. ivan

Both 1 & 2 are true
From 1st & 2nd statements you can derive Conclusion 1 (PP-UP)
From 2nd & 3rd statements we have (UP-UN)

2. passenger

Only 2 follows

21. ankit

Some pencils are kites
Some kites are desks
All desks are jungles
All jungles are mountains

1.Some Mountains are pencils
2.Some jungles are pencils
3.Some mountains are desks.
4.Some jungles are kites.

(1)Only 1 and 3 follow
(2)Only 1, 2 and 3 follow
(3)Only 3 and 4 follow
(4)Only 2, 3 and 4 follow
(5)None of the above

I am getting answer Only 1 and 3 follow but the answer given is Only 3 and 4 follow.

22. ankit

Some pencils are kites
Some kites are desks
All desks are jungles
All jungles are mountains

1.Some Mountains are pencils
2.Some jungles are pencils
3.Some mountains are desks.
4.Some jungles are kites.

(1)Only 1 and 3 follow
(2)Only 1, 2 and 3 follow
(3)Only 3 and 4 follow
(4)Only 2, 3 and 4 follow
(5)None of the above

I am getting answer Only 1 and 3 follow but the answer given is Only 3 and 4 follow. Please help me with this problem

23. shubham

this method is comprehended by only mrunal.if you know 100-50 rule,plz eleborate

24. Sheetal Raina

hello sir,
Thankyou for sharing this information… But could you please share the method for solving possibility case of syllogism…

25. Sam

Mrunal sir : plz find me the conlcusion of the following.

1.statement:

All ship can fly
all birds can fly

conclusion: most ships are birds.
2.statement :
most bags are heavy.
some packets are bag.
conclusion :
some packets may be heavy.
according to your table how could we treat “few” different with “most”….though you have mentioned that words like most ,few etc….are treated in “some” categoy.
plz explain the above two statement.

26. sourabh

In each of the questions below are given three statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be ture even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts. Read all conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer-

(1) If only conclusion I follows
(2) If only conclusion II follows
(3) If only conclusion I or II follows
(4) If neither conclusion I nor II follows
(5) If both conclusions I and II follows

(Q. 1 2)
Statements: A. Some poor are rich
B. All rich are doctors.
C. Some intelligent are doctors.

1. Conclusions: I. At least some poor are intelligent.
II. All intelligent being rich is a possibility.

2. Conclusions: I. All intelligent being doctors is a possiblity.
II. Some poor are doctors.

1. anku

1) only conclusion 2 follows..
2) both 1 and 2 follows..

27. Khushboo

Mrunal Sir,
Is there any article of yours in which you have explained about possibility type questions?
I make blunder in those questions!

28. shminder

Mrunal sir solve this cases of possibility plz
Statement:
1. all cats are dogs.
2. no dog is lion.
3. some lion are tigers.

Conclusion:
1. Some lions are cats is a possibility.
2. Some tigers are cat is a possibility.
3. All cats are tiger is not a possibility.
4. All tigers are dogs is not a possibility.

1. axe grinder

2 conclusion follows

1. Muhammed

tell me if my method to solve possibility type questions is good or bad.

1) Using ‘lion’ and ‘cat’ we can write a definite conclusion. That conclusion is ” No lion is cat”. This is an Universal negative sentence. From an Universal negative statement No positive sentence is possible so conclusion 1 doesn’t follow

2) Using ‘tiger’ and ‘cat’ we can write a definite conclusion. That conclusion is ” Some tigers are not cats” which means either some tigers are cats or No tigers are cats. So there is a possibility that some tigers are cats hence conclusion 2 follows.

3) I have just told you that using ‘Tiger’ and ‘Cat’ the only conclusion we can deduct is “Some tigers are not cats”. The only impossible thing from this conclusion is ‘All tigers are cats’. All other statements like ‘ All cats are tigers’, ‘Some cats are tigers’, No cats are tigers and Some cats are not tigers are possible. So Conclusion 3 doesn’t follow

4) Using ‘tiger’ and ‘dog’ we can deduct a definite conclusion and that conclusion is ” Some tigers are not dog”. The only impossible thing from this conclusion is ” All tigers are dogs”. So conclusion 4 follows

1. sunny kumar

HI,
2 & 4 conclusion follows.

29. Juhi Singh

Mrunal Syllogism and Deductions are same right? Or is there any diff b/w the 2?

1. Vishal

More or less same.A syllogism is a three-part deductive argument. A deductive argument involves a chain of reasoning that leads to a necessary conclusion in light of given facts.(That is from a general premise to a specific conclusion)

1. Juhi Singh

ok thanks .. reason being the TIME material from where I am practicing theres no syllogism chap .. but deduction questions r there .. the questions for practice are 2 statement questions with 4 options .. I hope that will suffice .. if not any suggestions?

1. Vishal

also refer to mrunal’s material regarding the same .Its comprehensive and sufficient for CSAT

mrunal sir..in case 4..cups bottles etc…pls check only 4..it follows..from statement 1 and statement 2.

31. Muhammed

PRITISH NANDY DOESN’T HATE EVERYBODY

I just want to tell an important thing. In lots of websites it’s given that when a Particular negative( O-type) sentence is one among in the two statements from which we have to deduct a conclusion, we cannot deduct a definite conclusion from both statements. I think that is wrong. It’s because I have personally analysed 64 combinations using the terms goats, dogs and cow with goat as middle term. Among in those 64 combination 28 combinations have particular negative sentence. In which, we cannot deduct a definite conclusion from 24 combinations. But we can deduct definite conclusion from 4 combinations which have particular negative sentence(O-type). Those 4 combinations are given below with conclusions

1. Statements: Some goats are not cow. All goats are dogs.

Conclusion we can deduct from these two statements is ” Some dogs are not cow”

2. Statements: Some cows are not goat. All dogs are goats.

Conclusion we can deduct from these statements is ” Some cows are not dogs”

3 Statements: Some goats are not dog. All goats are cows

Conclusion we can deduct from these statements is ” Some cows are not dogs”

4. Statements: Some dogs are not goat. All cows are goats

Conclusion we can deduct from these statements is ” some dogs are not cows”

Anyway I am very much sure about this and I can prove this using Venn diagram.

32. S Gautam

Dear Mrunalji,
Kindly assist in explaining following question
a)No kite is slate
b)No jug is a slate
c)Some jugs are ropes
Conc:

i) Some ropes are slates
ii)Some ropes are not slates
iii) no kite is a jug
iv) some jugs are kites

A) either I or ii or iii follow
B) either iii or iv and ii follow
C) either I or ii and iii or iv follow
D) none

Regards

1. Samarjyoti deka

is it option 3? bdw conclusion 2 and 3 are correct… but acc to options… it seems like option C….plz reply ur ans…

33. sunny kumar

4. Statement:
Some rose are white.
All white which are rose are black.

Conclusion:
I. All roses is not black.
II. No white is rose.

(1) Only conclusion I follows
(2) Only conclusion II follows
(3) Either conclusion I or II follow
(4) Neither I nor II follow
(5) Both I and II follow

answer is -Neither I nor II follow
but am getting option firt as answer…
kindly help with this…
thnks

34. raul

case 5 ?conclusion 2 ,how have u taken those parent statements…………………

35. raj

Can anyone help me for

Statement 1 some rings are circles

Statement 2 no circle is a square

Conclusion 1 no ring is a square

2 all rings are squares

36. ranjit

How to solve problems in which “possibility” is there, like
Statements:
Some teachers are professors.
Some lecturers are teachers.
Conclusions:
I. All teachers as well as professors being
lecturers is a possibility.
II. All those teachers who are lecturers are
also professors.
1) if only conclusion I follows.
2) if only conclusion II follows.
3) if either conclusion I or conclusion II follows.
4) if neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.
5) if both conclusions I and II follow.

37. Richa

Statements:
1. some questions are answers.
2. some options are answers.
3. some questions are steps.
4. some inputs are steps.

Conclusion:
(a) Some answers are steps.
(b) No steps are answer.

Please tell me what will be the answer. (Either or neither)

38. krunal patel

Statement:
1-All desks are chairs.

2-All chairs are tables.

3-All tables are boxes.

4-All boxes are trunks.

Conclusion:

I. Some trunks are tables.

II. All chairs are boxes.

III. Some boxes are desk.

IV. All desks are trunks.