[Reasoning] 4-Statement Syllogism: Approach, Techniques, explained for SBI PO (High level reasoning) and UPSC CSAT paper 2

Aptitude154 Comments

Ad Online Taiyari
  1. Introduction
  2. Recap: 2 statement
  3. Complimentary case
  4. Approaching 4 statement syllogism
  5. Case#1 : Stick, lamps, power, dresses, shirts
  6. Case#2: Bird, Horse, Tiger, Lion & Monkey
  7. Case#3: Bench, Wall, House, Jungle, Road
  8. Case#4: (Complimentary Pairs): Cups, Bottles, Jugs, Plates & Tables
  9. Case#5: (Complimentary Pairs): Chair, Handle, Pots, Mats & Buses

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 syllogismClick me to learn
Three statement syllogismClick 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 StatementValid ConversionPath
  1. Universal Positive (UP)
  2. All cats(A) are dogs (B)
  • Only PP
  • Some Cats (A) are dogs. (B)
  • Some dogs (B) are cats. (A)
  1. A to B
  2. B to A
  1. Universal Negative (UN)
  2. No Cats(A) are dogs (B)
  • PN :Some Dogs (B) are not Cats (A).
B to A
  • UN: No Dogs (B) are cats. (A)
  1. Particular Positive (PP)
  2. Some cats (A) are dogs (B)
  • Only PP: Some dogs (B) are cats(A)
B to A
  1. Particular Negative (PN)
  • Not possible.
  1. Now apply the combo rules. Unless specifically mentioned, conversion is A to C.

No conclusion combos

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.

ApplicableNot applicable
  1. Some Politicians are honest.
  2. No Politicians are honest
  1. Some Politicians are honest.
  2. 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 comboexample
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

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 statementsSubjectpredicateType
11. somesticksarelampsPP
22. someflowersarelampsPP
33. somelampsaredressesPP
44. alldressesareshirtsUP
conclusion statements
1someshirtsaresticksPP
2someshirtsareflowersPP
3someflowersaresticksPP
4somedressesaresticksPP

Answer choice

  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 statementSubjectpredicateType
1AllBirdsareHorsesUP
2allHorsesareTigersUP
3SomeTigersareLionsPP
4SomeLionsareMonkeysPP
conclusion statements
1SomeTigersareHorsesPP
2SomeMonkeysareBirdsPP
3SomeTigersareBirdsPP
4SomeMonkeysareHorsesPP

Answer choice

  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

3SomeTigersareBirdsPP

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

1AllBirds_AareHorses_BUP
2allHorses_BareTigers_CUP
  • 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.1SomeTigersareHorsesPP

If this is legit, who’re its parents?

Just one:

Q.Statement 2allHorsesareTigersUP

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

Checking conclusion #2

2SomeMonkeysareBirdsPP

If this is valid, who’re its parents?

1AllBirdsareHorsesUP
2allHorsesareTigersUP
3SomeTigersareLionsPP
4SomeLionsareMonkeysPP

I’ll reorder so it makes more sense

4SomeLionsareMonkeysPP
3SomeTigersareLionsPP
2allHorsesareTigersUP
1AllBirdsareHorsesUP
  • 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 numberValid/not?
3Valid
1Valid
2Invalid.

Accordingly, Answer choice

  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 statementSubjectpredicateType
1SomeBenchAreWallPP
2AllWallAreHouseUP
3SomeHouseAreJunglePP
4AlljungleAreRoadUP
Conclusion Statements
1someRoadsAreBenchesPP
2SomeJunglesAreWallsPP
3SomeHousesAreBenchesPP
4someRoadsAreHousesPP

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.

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

2SomeJungleAreWallPP

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

2AllWallAreHouseUP
3SomeHouseAreJunglePP
  • 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

4someRoadsAreHousesPP

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

3SomeHouseAreJunglePP
4AlljungleAreRoadUP
  • 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 statementSubjectpredicateType
1AllCupsareBottlesUP
2SomeBottlesareJugsPP
3NoJugisPlateUN
4somePlatesaretablesPP
Conclusion Statements
1SomeTablesareBottlesPP
2SomePlatesareCupsPP
3NoTableisBottleUN
4SomejugsarecupsPP

ANSWER choice

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

Approach

Let’s start with conclusion 1.

1SomeTablesareBottlesPP

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

2SomeBottlesareJugsPP
3NoJugisPlateUN
4somePlatesaretablesPP

I’ll rearrange the order

2SomeBottles_AareJugs_BPP
3NoJug_BIsPlate_CUN
4somePlates_CareTables_DPP
  • 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 conclusionSomeBottles_AAre notPlate_CPN
Q. statement #4somePlates_CareTables_DPP
  • 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.
SubjectPredicate
1SomeTablesareBottlesPP
3NoTableisBottleUN

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 statementsareType
1. SomechairsareHandlesPP
2. AllHandlesarePotsUP
3. AllPotsareMatsUP
4. SomeMatsareBusesPP
Conclusion Statement
1. SomebusesarehandlesPP
2. SomematsarechairsPP
3. NobusishandleUN
4. SomematsarehandlesPP

Answer choices

  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. somebusesarehandlespp
3. nobusesishandleun
  • 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
  • So answer can be C/D/E. Let’s Start with answer choice C.
  • 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. someMatsArechairsPP

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

1. someChairs(A)areHandles(B)PP
2. allHandles(B)arePots(C)UP
3. allPots(C)areMats(D)UP

Ok now let’s pair up 1 and 2

1. someChairs(A)AreHandles(B)PP
2. allHandles(B)ArePots(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.
Somechairs(A)arepots(C)PP
3. allPots(C)areMats(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.somematsarehandlesPP

Find its parents.

2. allHandles_AArePots_BUP
3. allPots_BareMats_CUP
  • 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

Mrunal recommends

  1. (free) NCERT, NIOS, TN-Books
  2. Environment by ShankarIAS
  3. Indian Polity M.Laxmikanth (Hindi | English)
  4. Art & Culture by Nitin Singhania (Hindi | English)
  5. Spectrum: Modern History (Hindi | English)
  6. Bipin Chandra: Post Independence
  7. Fast-track to Arithmetic Rajesh Verma
  8. MK Pandey’s Analytical Reasoning
  9. Disha’s Topicwise Paperset (Hindi | English)
  10. School Atlas
  11. Mains: Language papers
  1. (free) NCERT, NIOS, TN-Books 4 History,Geo,Sci
  2. Indian Polity M.Laxmikanth (Hindi | English)
  3. Spectrum: Modern History (Hindi | English)
  4. Maths: Quantam CAT Sarvesh Kumar
  5. Objective General English SP Bakshi
  6. Word Power made Easy -Norman Lowe
  7. Topic wise Solved Paperset by Disha


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. APPU

        YOU ARE CORRECT AYUSH

    1. 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..

    2. vips

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

    3. Rohit

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

      So your statement is correct.

    4. 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

      your answers are correct.

      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. gautam kumar

    1, 3, 4 are correct while 2 doesnt follow

  13. Lakhan Jadeja

    very easy method thank u so much sir

  14. 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,,,,!!! 🙂

  15. 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 .

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. gaurav

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

  19. gaurav

    please solve ..
    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

  20. 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

  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. Please help me with this problem

  22. shubham

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

  23. Sheetal Raina

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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    please explain.

    1. anku

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

  26. Khushboo

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

  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. aditya

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

  30. 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.

  31. 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

    Answer options
    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…

  32. 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

  33. raul

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

  34. 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

  35. 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.

  36. 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)

  37. 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.

    answer:
    only I and II follow
    Only I, II and IV follow
    Only II, III and IV follow
    Only II, III and IV follow
    All follow
    None of these

    please solve this.

Write your message!