Don’t read further, until and unless you’ve mastered the 2-statement syllogism technique explained in previous article (click ME)
- Recap of 2-Statement syllogism
- Parent Statements
- Chain formula
- DemoQ: Married Student Dancers (CSAT-2012)
- DemoQ: Rich n Sick Air travellers (CSAT-2012)
- DemoQ: Drug addict Artists (CSAT-2012)
Recap of 2-Statement syllogism
Before we understand the 3-statement syllogism, let’s recap the 2-statement trick just for refreshing your memory.
What to do when 2-statement syllogism question is given?
- They must have only three terms (A, B and C)
- Are the question statements in standard format (A to B then B to C)? if no, then refer to following conversion table. (important: priority order for conversion is PP>UN>UP.)
| Type | Valid Conversion |
| Universal Positive (UP) | Only PP |
| Universal Negative (UN) | PN or UN |
| Particular Positive (PP) | Only PP |
| Particular Negative (PN) | Can’t do. |
3. Classify the Question statement (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Apply the combo rules on Question statements.
No conclusion scenario |
possible conclusion scenario |
|
|
5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and “either or” given in answer, then check for Complimentary case.
Now we’ll see how to solve three-statement syllogism.
Parent Statements
The crux of 2-statement syllogism was
- When we’ve Question statements in standard format (A to B then B to C).
- We apply some combo rules and may get a conclusion in the form of A to C
(or we may get the conclusion in form of “C to A”, in case the question statements were in the format of UN+(UP/PP). Recall the Ban-ki-Moon’s mood reversal).
In case of three statement syllogism, we accept the conclusion statement (A to C) as valid, then try to find out its parents (those question statements A to B then B to C).
Then, we try to get a valid conclusion out of those two-question statements and see if it matches with the given conclusion state in answer.
No need to get confused, let’s try with a simple scenario.
question statement |
conclusion statement |
|
|
Answer choices
- Only 1 and 2
- Only 1, 2 and 3
- All follow
- None Follow
Start with first conclusion statement
i) Some tigers are cats (PP)
Q. if this is a valid conclusion, who’re its parents?
Ans. Thouse question statements with words “tigers”, “cats”, and a common term.
You can see, first and third statement fits the bill.
| Q.statement | Type |
|
UP |
|
UP |
- 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. UP meets UP then its size doesn’t increase (UP+UP=UP) A to C. Hence conclusion will be “All cats are tigers.” (meaning given conclusion statement #3 is valid).
- If we convert this valid conclusion “All cats are tigers (UP)”, then UP–>PP= Some tigers are cats.
It means the given conclusion statement#1 is also valid.
So far: 1 and 3 are correct.
Now test the second conclusion statement.
Chain formula
ii) some pigs are tigers
if this is a valid conclusion, who’re its parents?
Ans. . Thouse question statements with words “pigs”, “tigers”, and a common term(B).
But I don’t see any such question statements.
Now we’ll have to apply chain formula. Meaning, (A to B1, then B1 to B2, then B2 to C).
Consider this arrangement
| Question statements (CHAIN) | Chain |
|
Pig to Cat, cat to dog and finally dog to tiger. Let’s see if we connect pig to tiger. |
|
|
|
We’ll take two statements at time and try to get an intermediate conclusion.
| Statement | Type |
|
Particular positive (PP) |
|
Universal positive (UP) |
Three terms = yes
Standard format= yes. (there A to B1 and then B1 to B2, which is just like A to B then B to C)
Apply combo-rule
PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to B2)
Hence intermediate conclusion is Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2)
Now take this intermediate conclusion with the next statement in our chain.
| Question-statements | Type |
| Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2) | Particular positive (PP) (derived) |
| All dogs(B2) are tigers(C) | Universal positive (UP) (given in question). |
Again, same standard operating procedure of 2-statement syllogism.
Three terms = yes
Standard format= yes. (there A to B2 and then B2 to C, which is just like A to B then B to C)
Apply combo-rule
Again, PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to C)
Therefore conclusion is Some pigs(A) are tigers (C).
Voila! Second conclusion statement is also correct.
So far 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
Let’s check the last statement (IV).
iv) some cats are not tigers
while we were checking the first conclusion statement, we had found that “All cats are tigers (UP)”. Therefore, given conclusion statement is not possible.
Final answer: only 1, 2 and 3 are correct. (option b)
DemoQ: Married Student Dancers (CSAT-2012)
Question statements
- None but students are the members of the club.
- Some members of the club are married.
- All married persons are invited for dance.
Which one of the conclusions can be drawn from the above statements?
- All students are invited for dance
- All married students are invited for dance
- All members of the club are married person
- None of the above conclusions can be drawn
Solution and approach
- first, rephrase the given statements so that processing becomes easier.
- Recall the “special conversion” rule from previous article on 2 statement.
- None but Politicians(A) are honest(B)=> All honest(B) are politicians(A) (Universal positive)
- I’m replacing the word “members of the club” with “club-members”.
- Thus simplified version of the given question is following
| Question statements | Answer statements |
| 1. All clubmembers are students.2. Some clubmembers are married. 3. All married are invited for Dance. |
a) All students are invited for danceb) All married students are invited for dance c) All club-members are married. d) None of the above conclusions can be drawn |
Ok now what?
We’ve to pick up the answer statement one by one and test them.
a) All students are invited for dance
there are two ways to solve this statement, first the
longcut method
Who’re the parents of this conclusion statement?
No direct parents. We’ve to apply chainrule.
| Question statements | Chain rule |
|
We’ll try to link students-clubmembers-married-dance invitation. |
|
|
|
Let’s start. First two statements
|
UP |
|
PP |
Standard format? Nope.
Conversion needed: yes. But priority order=PP>UN>UP. Means we’ll convert the second statement (particular positive)
|
UP |
|
PP converted to PP. |
They’re still not in standard format. So Exchange positions
|
PP converted to PP. |
|
UP |
Ok now they’re in standard format. Apply the combo rule. PP+UP=PP (NASA Mood change)
Some married are students. This is our intermediate conclusion. Now pair it up with third question statement from the chain rule
| Some married(B2) are students(A) | PP |
| All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C) | UP |
Standard format? Nope.
Then convert!
| Some students(A) are married(B2) | PP |
| All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C) | UP |
Ok now in standard format (A to B then B to C)
Apply combo rule PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change again!)
Conclusion = Some students are invited for dance. (PP)
But the given answer statement says “All students are invited for dance”(UP)=impossible.
Hence first answer choice is eliminated.
Shortcut
- You see the conclusion statement says “all students are invited for Dance.” (univ.positive statement).
- When do we get “universal positive” statement as conclusion.?
- Only when UP+UP=UP.
- If we apply the chain-rule, we’ll encounter one particular positive (PP). And that’ll ruin the mood (because whenever particular positive statement comes, the conclusion is either
1. PP+UP=Particular positive (NASA mood change) OR
2. UP+PP=No conclusion. (UP politicians hate particular statements).
- Hence we can never get a Universal positive (UP) type of conclusion, in either case! Means this answer choice is invalid by default! No need to manully apply chain rule here. Anyways, Move to the next answer choice
b) All married students are invited for dance
superficially this statement contains three terms.
- Married
- Student
- Dance
Wait a minute! Our syllogism conclusions contain only two terms (e.g. All dogs are cats.)
So, how can we apply syllogism here?
Well, if you observe carefully, the syllogism rules are still applicable in this conclusion statement containing three terms.
From the “longcut” method in previous option, we’ve found that “Some students are invited for dance. (PP)”
- Question: which students are invited? Well, we eliminated the middle-term (B2) “Married”. Means all married students are invited for dance. (this represents the intersecting area between two Venn Diagram circles).
- Therefore, we can say “All married students are invited for dance.” Hence Answer is (B).
c) All club-members are married.(UP)
The second question statement says, “Some clubmembers are married.” (PP).
A particular positive statement can be converted into only PP. Hence we cannot say for sure that all club members are married. Hence this answer choice is incorrect.
DemoQ: Rich n Sick Air travellers (CSAT-2012)
Question Statements
- None but the rich ran afford air-travel.
- Some of those who travel by air become sick
- Some of those who become sick require treatment
Conclusion statements
- All the rich persons travel by air.
- Those who travel by air become sick
- All the rich persons become sick.
- All those who travel by air are rich
Solution
- first we will simplify the given statements.
- Recall the “special conversion” rule from earlier article on 2-statement syllogism.
- None but Politicians(A) are honest.(B)=> All honest(B) are politicians(A) (Universal positive)
- Similarly, None but the rich ran afford air-travel=> All air-travellers are rich. (UP).
- That means, Correct answer is (D). Case is over.
- But just for concept clarity, let’s test remaining answer choices as well.
Simplified question statements
|
Simplified Answer statements
|
Now let’s solve
|
The given question statement is “All air-travellers(A) are rich.(B)”(UP). Apply the conversion here, UP=>PP. Hence Some rich(B) are air-travellers(A).Therefore, first answer choice is incorrect. |
|
Question statement #2 says “Some air travellers are sick.” (PP). can’t convert to UP.Hence this option is also incorrect. |
c) All rich are sick.
Q.If this is the conclusion statement, then who are its parents?
Ans. Those question statements which contain the terms “rich”, “sick”, along with a common middle term.
From the given question statements, following two fit the bill
| 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich | UP |
| 2. Some air travellers(B) are sick | PP |
Approach #1 (shortcut)
Please observe: “All rich are sick.”= Universal positive statement.
When do we get UP conclusion? Only when combo rule UP+UP=UP is applied.
Now in above case, one question statement is PP. so it’ll “kill” the mood. UP conclusion is not possible. (no need to convert any statement.)
Approach #2 (longcut)
| 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(A) | UP |
| 2. Some air travellers(B) are sick.(C) | PP |
As you can see, there is one middle term (air travellers). But the question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C).
It means, we must convert anyone statement. But priority for conversion is PP>UN>UP.
So we will convert second statement.
Some air-travellers are sick (PP)==convert==> Some sick are air-travellers(B)
| 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich. | UP |
| 2. Some sick are air-travellers(B) | PP |
But they are still not in standard format (A to B then B to C). well no problem, just exchange position of question statements
| 1.Some sick(A) are air-travellers(B) | PP |
| 2. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(C) | UP |
Apply the Combo-rule. PP+UP=PP (NASA Mood change).
Hence Some sick(A) are rich.(C). (PP)
If we convert it then Some rich are sick. (PP convert to PP).
But answer choice says All rich are sick.= this is not possible.
Therefore, third answer choice is also incorrect.
DemoQ: Drug addict Artists (CSAT-2012)
Question statements
- All artists are whimsical.
- Some artists are drug addicts.
- Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts.
From the above three statements it may be concluded that:
- Artists are frustrated
- Some drug addicts are whimsical
- All frustrated people are drug addicts.
- Whimsical people are generally frustrated
Statement 3 says “Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts.” For our purpose this is a “Particular positive (PP)” statement. Let’s simplify it to “Some frustrated people are drug addicts” Now start with answer (A)
a) (all) Artists are frustrated (UP)
if this is the answer, then what could be the question statements?
The question statements could be those statements where the words Artist and frustrated come along with a common middle-term (B)
Consider these question statements:
| 2. Some artists are drug addicts.(B) | PP |
| 3. Some Frustrated people are drug addicts.(B) | PP |
Although this in not in “standard format”, but even when we convert one of them (PP->PP), we’ll be left with PP+PP=no conclusion.
Hence move to next option.
b) Some drug addicts are whimsical
- if this is the answer, then what could be the question statements?
- The question statements could be those statements where the words drug addict and whimsical come along with a common middle-term (B)
- Consider these question statements:
| 1. All artists (B) are whimsical. | UP |
| 2. Some artists (B) are drug addicts. | PP |
- Three terms = yes.
- Standard format (A to B then B to C)=No.
- So maybe to convert anyone know the statement. according to the priority order PP>UN>UP, we must convert second statement.
| 1. All artists (B) are whimsical. | UP |
| 2. Some drug addicts are artists (B). | PP->PP converted. |
Now interchange position of question statement 1 and 2.
| Some drug addicts(A) are artists (B). | PP->PP converted. |
| All artists (B) are whimsical.(C) | UP |
- Okay now what? Apply the combo rules
- PP+UP=PP. (NASA mood change).
- Thus final answer is “some drug addicts are whimsical.” (option B)
For the archive of all [Aptitude] articles, visit Mrunal.org/aptitude.
![[Reasoning] Calendar Questions: Finding day or date, concepts, shortcuts explained](https://mrunal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/i-lr-500x383.png)
statements
some leaves are skies
some skies are clouds
no cloud is a boat
Conclusion
1. some boats are leaves
2. some clouds are leaves
3. all skies are leaves
4. no leaf is a boat
options
1. only 1,2 and 3 follow
2. only 2,3 and 4 follows
3. only either 1 or 4 and 2 follows
4. only either 1 or 4 and 3 follows
5. none of these
mrunal sir please you have to help to solve this problem
please give me the solution
Of the conclusions (not options)
1,2 and 3 follow
or
2,3 and 4 follow
The five options do not have these, hence (5) none of these
none of these
1,2,4 neglected at ease becoz it cntain conclusion 3 as it is which is nt possible
option 3 neglcted via venn diagram
All mangoes are not red…Will this be a UN statement? or should we write it as ..some mangoes are red i.e. PP. mrunal please reply.
Dear Sir, I have a very general doubt over the Syllogism question.
“Should we go by the literal meaning of the noun in these questions?”
Consider the following example which has been have explain here:
Question statement
None but students are the members of the club.
Some members of the club are married.
All married persons are invited for dance.
In above question should we assume that all student are person, going by the literal meaning of the person and student
Similarly, Consider another example which has been explained
Question Statement
None but the rich ran afford air-travel.
Some of those who travel by air become sick
Some of those who become sick require treatment
Should we assume that rich and poor are opposite, i.e. no poor is rich and vice-versa. Although, here is no mentioned of poor in conclusion statement, so this doubt may not be of much relevance, but in some other case it may be..
Doubt Mrunal please reply. Whether these are correct or not?
Mangoes are red == All Mangoes are red?
Mangoes are not red == No mangoes are red?
All mangoes are not red == some mangoes are red?
Hey friends,
i have a doubt, if someone could please help me out.
ques:
1.All lawyers are unethical
2.No politician is unethical.
3.Some unethical are bright.
4.Few Bright are politicians
Conclusion:
a)Some lawyers are bright
b)Some lawyers are politicians
c)some bright are not politician
d) None of d above
In my opinion C should be the answer as the Bright who are unethical are not politicians, but the answer shows it is none of the above. Can anyone Explain please.
Thanks.
u r correct hemant……
The answer should be d) None of the above.
C is not right as u can figure out from ur venn diagram that some bright are indeed politician.
Just bcoz some bright are politician doesn’t mean that some other bright are not politician. This is the logic.
Thanks for reply…
Btw… Since some bright are unethical ( given in point 3) ———- 1
And no politician are unethical ( given in point 2) ———– 2
So from these two , Venn diagram will b formed with politician distinctly away from unethical’s circle and some bright in unethical’s circle. Now after reading point 4 from question, you will include some politicians in bright’s circle but they can never encroach unethical’s circle( since point 2).
My Logic : the brights who are unethical are not politicians , therefore answer should be c ?.
Please can anyone correct me if I was wrong at some stage ?
Mrunal sir…. If you you please spare a moment .. Thanks..
The Premise “Brights who are not unethical are not politicians” is correct
And just as nishat said, We could not safely conclude that some bright are not politicians…
Try this venn diagram on precise….
1.Politicians as a subset of Bright
2.Draw the diagram for “Some Unethical as bright” ( without any contact of the politician subset in the Bright circle )
3.The lawyer subset also should not make any contact with the Bright circle
Now we cant say some bright are not politicians.
I think option d. None holds good
u r wrong…some bright are politicians does not mean others can not be non politician……
that was for nishant
Vips, i guess the answer is d) none of the above.
Yaar in questions me zyada dimag nahi lagana chahiye. When u can figure out from the venn diagram that some bright ARE politician, then why would u go for “C” option which says some bright ARE NOT Politician.
i know what u r saying vips, but the logic is “don apply logic”. hehe…
Anyways the answer must be D) None of the above.
Statements: Some keys are staplers. Some staplers are stickers. All the stickers are pens.
Conclusions:
Some pens are staplers.
Some stickers are keys.
No sticker is key.
Some staplers are keys.
A. Only (1) and (2)
B. Only (2) and (4)
C. Only (2) and (3)
D. Only (1) and (4) and either (2) or (3)
Sir please provide valid answer for the above question using above explained method. I am getting answer as ” Only 1 and 4 ” But the option has ” Only 1 and 4 and either 2 or 3 “. I am confused :( Please help me.
hi Ananthkumar v.
the answer given in the book is right. as 2 and 3 are complementary pair.
its a rule.
complementary pairs answer choices combo of 1.universal positive and particular negative.
2. particular positive and particular negative
3. particular positive and particular negative.
the only condition of complementary pair is that the subject and premises of the conclusions must be same. in some cases conversion is possible.
i hope this info helps.
Hi ADTINA,
I learnt about that combo pack. But it is for converting statements only know??? Since we have PP & PP in first and second statements then how we can use combo packs there??
Of course the subject and premises are same in the conclusion.. But kindly tell me whether we have to go by statements or conclusions when we are having such type of questions?
Solved by Venn diagram…
We know that 1 & 4 are correct…
Now considering
case 1:Stapler as not a subset of Key
Condition 2 is true & Condition 3 is false
Case 2:Stapler as a subset of key
Condition 3 is true & Condition 2 is false
So the option d) 1 and 4 and either 2 or 3 holds good
pls help to solve this-
Statements: Some spoons are bowls. All bowls are knives. All knives are forks.
Conclusions:
All spoons are forks.
All bowls are forks.
Some knives are bowls.
Some forks are spoons.
A. Only II and III follow
B. Only II and IV follow
C. Only III and IV follow
D. All follow
E. None of these
e)None of these
II, III and IV are correct..
yepp
mrunal sir pls help solving this 1 too-
Statements: Some tapes are discs. Some discs are cassettes. Some cassettes are songs.
Conclusions:
Some songs are discs.
Some cassettes are tapes.
Some songs are tapes.
No song is a disc.
A. Only either I or IV follows
B. Only either II or IV follows
C. Only III and IV follow
D. Only III and either II or IV follows
E. None of these
E.None of these
either 1 or 4……. they can not be false simultaneously
sorry vips is correct… My bad…. :(
Either 1 or 4 holds good…
yup d ans given is either 1 r 4 follows
pls elaborate how?
n thanx
sir please state some methods to solve the syllogism with the conclusions having “possibility of”
I also need to know this
All gliders are parachutes. No parachute is an airplane. All airplanes are helicopters.
Conclusions:
I. No glider is an airplane.
II. All gliders being helicopters ‘is a possibility’.
: Some birds are animals. All animals are rivers. Some rivers are lions. Conclusions:
I. Some lions are animals
II. Some rivers are birds
III. No animal is lion
(1) Only II follows
(2) Only either I or III follows
(3) I and II follows
(4) Only either II or III follow
(5) None of these
Ans: 3
answer is 1) only II follows…
Hi All,
Please help me in solving this question using the same method:
a) All rackets are jackets.
b) NO cow is cat.
c) Only cats are dogs.
Conclusions:
I)Some rackets are not cats.
II) Some cats are jackets.
III) Some rackets are cats.
IV) No dog is cow.
sir please suggest that if the statement is all apples are mangoes is a possibility wht should be it consider as?? either some apples are mangoes or simply all apples are mangoes as such???//
Simplified question statements
All air-travellers are rich.
Some air travellers are sick.
Some sick are treatment.
Simplified Answer statements
All rich are air-travellers.
(all) air travellers are sick
All rich are sick.
All air-travellers are are rich.
as per above which is given in examples:-
all air travellers are rich i.e UP
it can be converted into all rich are air travellers. {UP A-B TO UP B-A} so conclusion 1 is correct. he shows wrong plz explain anyone………..
by ur techniques,i can easily solve the ques of syllogism..so many thanks 4 dis sir……..
hi
mrunal sir
please sir give your valuble suggesstion for IBPS RRB.
we are waiting
THANKS
hi all,
its very useful.but i want to know the being possiblity method in syllogism.if any one explain about that,it would be helpful.
HELP…
I) some mails are chats
II) all updates are chats
Conclusion:
A All mails being update is a possibility.
B No update is a mail.
Answer is Only conclusion “A” follows….
BUT WHY?…Ans should be NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN (as UP+PP==No Conclusion)
But by venn diagram ans A is coming..
PLz help with this…Saare ans aa rhe the is PP UP method se, but not getting ans in this Q…
PS:
plz explain with PP method….THANKS..
the two statements are aligned as
1.some mails are chats
2.some chats are updates
which implies no conclusion can be made
or the two statements are aligned as
1. all updates are chats
2.some chats are mails
which implies no conclusion can be made
so no update is mail does not follow
and whenever no conclusion can be made between the subject and predicate then the possibility is always true…
hi,
can anyone explain the solution of syllogism in which ‘being’ word is used with three statements. pls if anyone can….
thanx….
Any one out here explain me this question
statements:
All stereos are cds.
some stereos are cassettes
some cds are pens
conclusions:
1 some pens are stereos
2 some cds are cassettes.
3 some pens are cassettes.
4 all stereos are cassettes.
options are:
a)either 1 or 4 follows
b) only 2 and 3 follows
c)either 1 or 4 and 2 follows
d)only 2 follows
e) none of these
i think it sud be none of these
only 2 follows is the correct option
only 2 follows is the correct one.
option d); i.e. only 2 follows is the right answer
only 2 follows
Only two follows
only 2 follows ans is D
Ans is b) only 2 and 3 follows.
Conclusion 2 is correct
hence the answer is “d”
Somebody please xplain.. I dnt understand how it produce 2 as an answer when most of the conclsion are in PP.. According to the given method the answr shud be (e)..
Ohh.. silly mistake.. d is actually the right answer..
Statement 1 : All stereos are cds
Statement 2 : some stereos are cassettes
1st statement is UP type and 2nd statement is pp type and according to priority pp type should be converted.
So the converted 2nd statement is :
Statement 2 (conv): some cassettes are stereos
Now we change the order of both the statements to bring it in the A->B/B->c format. Hence
Statement 1 :some cassettes are stereos
Statement 2 :All stereos are cds
Conclusion : Some cassettes are cds or some cds are cassettes
none of these
1,2,3 conclusion
is follow
Only 2 follows
the correct answer is option (d) Only 2 follows
all popular novels are best-sellers.
some literary novels are not best sellers.
some literary novels are not popular …. is the conclusion correct ?
ya vipul i also think that it is corrrect
conclusion ins not possible for this…
no conclusion
Conclusion is right
no
answer for prashant’s question : Is it “d” if it is…. then tell me i will explain you the method
Yes answer is option d . plz explain it.
Prashant:
Concl 1 may of may not folloe
Concl 2 Defintly folloe
conclusion 3 may or may not follow
Concl 4 Never follows…
so according to options, Only 2 follows
hw com 1 is not correct in prashant’s question
statements:
All stereos are cds.
some stereos are cassettes
some cds are pens
from 1 and 3
statements:
All stereos are cds.(UP)
some cds are pens (PP)
Conclusion
Some stereos are pens (PP)
PP-> PP
Some pens are stereos which is option 1.
So why not 1 conclusion and overall answer none of these since 1 and 2 not exist in option.
sorry i got it wrong UP + PP = nc
statement:
1.Some books are pens.
2.No pen is pencil.
conclusion:
1.some books are pencils.
2.No book is pencil.
the answer is to be given as
a. if only conclusion 1 follows
b. if only conclusion 2 follows
c. if either conclusion 1 or 2 follows
d. if neither 1 or 2 follows
f ..if both 1 and 2 follow
according to d book the answer is ‘c’..
Now while im solvng thisThe statment 1 is PP and 2 is UN. According the combo rule, PP + UN = PN.( as per mrunal.org method)
Therfore the answwer should be “Some books are not pencils ” i.e. the option d.
if anyone also following mrunal procedure please help
The answer for this question is 3rd option as the solutions are complimentary.Some and no form a complimentary pair so either or will be the answer
according to mrunal method answer should be
“some books are not pencils”
but apart from following combo rules ( as explained by mrunal ), we should also have to look for any complementary pair and single statement conversion, if so formed then that should have priority as in your question so 3rd option is correct.
ans is C if either conclusion 1 or 2 follows
3rd is correct option
either 1 or 2
But according to Mrunal, the complementary case arises only after we arrive at ‘no conclusion’ from the given statements. In this case it is a clear PN.
Should we test for complementary cases even when there is no ambiguity?
Q1:Statements:
1.some colours are paints
2.All colours are varnishes
3.No varnish is a dye
conclusions:
a.No paint is a dye
b.All paints being varnishes is a possibility
Mrunal sir…… how will i handle when conclusion has this “possibility” type of senteces?
can you please answer this question?
Thanks for your work…
All paints being varnish is a possibility is the right answer.
NO paint is a dye can be true but not in all possible Venn scenarios, hence rejected.
Venn Diagrams are best source to solve such cases.
all paints being varnishes is a possibility is a right ans
Conclusion b is right. It is possible.
From the statements some paints are varnishes is right
and there is no negative sentences between statement 1 and 2.
so it is possible.
Ans plz.
Statements.
1.all apartments are hut
2.No hut is building
3.all buildings at cottage
Conclusions
1.no cottage is apartment
2.some cottages are apartment
3.No apartment is a cottage
4.Some buildings being apartment is a possibility
5.Some cottages being apartment is a possibility
6. No cottage is a hut.
i think…
first conclusion definitely follows.
Third conclusion is converse of first conclusion.so it also follows
6th conclusion also definitely follows.
the above three(1,3,6) conclusions definitely follows.i have no doubt on that one.
but i have some doubt on this possibility type sentences(4 and 5)
even i will try…
4 th conclusion not follows and
5 th conclusion may be follows
and u know that 2nd conclusion not follows
If u have any clarity to solve this possibility type sentences….plz share with us….
5 and 1 or 2. This will be my answer for the above case.
6 is void because S3- ‘ALL BUILDING are COTTAGE’ denotes two things- 3(1) either all building are cottages or 3(2) all building = all cottages’
So if 3(2) is true, then as per statement 2- No hut is building, it follows No Cottage is a Hut.
but ,if scenario 3(1) is true, this conclusion 6 cannot be inferred.
4 is not true anyways.
3 – No Apt is a cottage-
It follows from S1, S2, S3 that all Apts are huts, no Hut is bldg, so no apt can be bldg, but apt can/ cannot be a cottage depending on scenario 3 (1) or 3 (2).
Hence, we are not certain if 3 will hold true always.
conclusion 1- no cottage is apartment.
parent term- cottage & apartment.
since no two statements satisfied this apply chain rule.
for first two statement
UP+UN=UN
“all apartments are not building”
from above 7 third statement
UN+UP=PN (C to A)
“some cottage are not apartment”
thus according to method from starting three no conclusion follows.
but starting two forms a complimentary pair so either one of them should be correct.
possibility statements is better understood by venn diagrams
on solving 5 will be correct.
so 5 & either 1 or 2 will be correct option.
Only 5 and eithrr 1 or 2 is the answer
reply plz..
statement–
all tigers are lions.
no cow is lion
some camels are cows.
conclusion–
some lions are camels
no camel is tiger
some tigers are rows
None of the given conclusions seem to be true.
Can you share what the answer is as per the question source?
either 1 or 2 follows
EITHER 1 OR 2 IS RIGHT ANS.
Please solve the following question
Statement
1. No note is coin
2. Some coins are metals
3. All plastic are notes
Conclusions
1. No coin is plastic
2 All plastic being metal is a possibility
Please put some emphasis on 2 nd conclusion
Both the options are correct.
Explanation: All plastic are notes and no note is coin. thats y no coin is plastic.
some coins are metals and some note can also be metal. May be that some note contains all plastic . so it is a possibility.
only conclusion 1 follows
only conclusion 1.
both are correct.
Question statements
None but students are the members of the club.
Some members of the club are married.
All married persons are invited for dance.
Which one of the conclusions can be drawn from the above statements?
All students are invited for dance
All married students are invited for dance
All members of the club are married person
None of the above conclusions can be drawn
“i didnt understand how come “all married students are invited for dance” is the right answer..??” can somebody explain how 2nd conclusion is right..??
You are right. The correct answer is D.
thank u so much sir