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

SubscribeAptitude159 Comments

  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 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
  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.

Applicable Not 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 combo example
Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy (PN)
  1. All Politicians are honest.
  2. Some Politicians arenot honest
PP + Pritish Nandy (PN)
  1. Some Politicians are honest
  2. Some Politicians arenot honest
PP + United Nations (UN)
  1. Some Politicians are honest.
  2. No Politicians are honest

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

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 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

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

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.

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 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

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

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

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.

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

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. 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
  • 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. 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

Mrunal recommends

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

  1. In a UN, Subject and Predicate are interchangeable…so in “No politicians are honest” “No honest are politicians”
    Plz comment

  2. please explain this by your method(this method does not work for this but it gets solved by venn diagram)

    boys play cricket.
    some girls do not play cricket.

    conclusion –>
    some girls are not boys.

    is conclusion true or false
    by applying method if PN IS FIRST STATEMENT THEN NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN IREESPECTIVE OF SECOND STATEMENT
    BUT IF WE SOLVE BY VENN DIAGRAM WE ARE GETTING THIS CONCLUSION

  3. dear sir..
    kindly explain all possible chapters of reasoning specially non-verbal reasoning…and also provide some tricks for reasoning,because sbi po exam & ssc cgl exam is very near…hope u do it as fast as possible….

  4. Dear Sir,
    I have done Syllogism using your tips for two, three and three statement Syllogism. But when I tried to solve 2012 CSAT apptitude papers, maximum questions were asked in 2012 found assumption based not in the format like A-B & B-C. How could I solve such question according to your UP-UN method.please reply.

  5. RC Agarwal book of Non verbal reasoning do not have exercise questions for 4 statement syllogism. Please would you be able to provide a set of exercise questions with answers for this ?

  6. SBI PO QUESTIONS:
    Q1:
    STATEMENTS: 1.SOME GASES ARE LIQUIDS.
    2.ALL LIUIDS ARE WATER.
    CONCLUSIONS: 1.ALL GASES BEING WATER IS A POSSIBILITY.
    2.ALL SUCH GASES WHICH ARE NOT WATERCAN NEVER BE LIQUIDS.

    ANS:CONCLUSION 1 FOLLOWS

    Q2:

    ATATEMENTS: 1.SOME TEACHERS ARE PROFESSORS.
    2.SOME LECTURERS ARE TEACHERS

    CONCLUSIONS: 1. ALL TEACHERS AS WELL AS ALL PROFESSORS BEING LECTURERS IS A POSSIBILITY.
    2.ALL THOSE TEACHERS WHO ARE LECTURERS ARE ALSO PROFESSORS.

    ANS:CONCLUSION 1 FOLLOWS

    ANYBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE ANSWERS WAS ABTAINED…….

    1. Q 1. Conclusion 1 follows since it is talking about the possibility about all gases being water, it is not definite about it. Predicate of statement is the subject of statement 2 and both are A type so, LIQUID is cancelled out and the conclusion is SOME GASES ARE WATER which can be obtained from the statement ALL GASES ARE WATER.

      1. Q 1. Conclusion 1 follows since it is talking about the possibility of ALL GASES BEING WATER, it is not definite about it. Predicate of statement 1 is the subject of statement 2 and both are A type so, LIQUID is cancelled out and the conclusion is SOME GASES ARE WATER which can be obtained from the statement ALL GASES ARE WATER which is definitely a possibility.

        1. if in conclusion SOME GASES ARE WATER is one of the conclusion,then i picked it.but it’s not in the conclusions……In conclusion ALL GASES ARE WATER is placed….

          SOME GASES ARE WATER noway relate to ALL GASES ARE WATER

          but ALL GASES ARE WATER is related to SOME GASES ARE WATER….how?
          because SOME GASES ARE WATER is a converse of ALL GASES ARE WATER
          ( but ALL GASES ARE WATER is not the convers of SOME GASES ARE WATER)……it’s my thinking…..please correct it if i am wrong….

      2. Same funda has been applied in Q 2. also.

    2. anurag is right,in immediate reference on the basis of a given PP type statement although it may not be definitely concluded that UP is correct but you can not refuse its possibility of eighther being correct or false. Consider this
      some politicians are currupt
      we can not infer directly that all politicians are currupt, but it is a possibility that remaining which are not been raided may be also currupt. possibility always there,
      the inference rule is
      given PP
      then UP is uncertain (may be both true or false)
      UN is always false
      PN may be true together but can not be false together

  7. ANYBODY PLEASE ATTEMPT THESE QUESTIONS AND EXPALIN ME…..HOW THE ANSWERS WERE OBTAINED………PLEASE

    SBI PO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS:

    STATEMENTS:1.SOME SCHOLS ARE COLLEGES
    2.SOME COLLEGES ARE HOSTELS
    3.NO HOSTEL IS OFFICE
    4.ALL OFFICES ARE INSTITUTES
    CONCLUSIONS:
    1.NO HOSTEL IS INSTITUTE
    2.SOME HOSTELS ARE SCHOOLS
    3.SOME HOSTELS ARE INSTITUTES
    4.SOME OFFICES ARE COLLEGES

    ANS:
    A.ONLY 1 FOLLOWS
    B.ONLY 2 & 3 FOLLOWS
    C.ONLY 4 FOLLOWS
    D.ONLY EITHER 1 OR 2 FOLLOWS
    E.NONE FOLLOWS

    ANSWER IS 4.

    1. SORRY ANSWER IS D

    2. D answer is not possible at ol. Answer should be either 1 or 3 follows.

      1. In this question answer should be E i.e NONE FOLLOWS.

    3. anurag is right

  8. D answer is not possible at ol. Answer should be either 1 or 3 follows.

    1. ya……typing mistake….answer is either 1 or 3.

      please explain me how it is obtaind…..

      1. ok….i also got the answer….thank u anurag….bcz of u i check my fault…..thanks

    2. if the third conclusion is :SOME INSTITUTES ARE HOSTELS.then the answer remains same?do they form complimentary case?

  9. hey thnks mrunal! nice syllogism articles!

  10. Statements: a) no proud is animal
    b) some sheeps are animals
    c) all cats are sheeps

    Conclusions- 1) no cat is proud
    2) some cats are animals
    3) no animal is cat
    4) some prouds are sheep

    Only 3 follows
    Only either 1 or 3 follow
    Only 1 follows
    Only 1 and either 2or3 follow
    None of these

    Plz solve it sir m unable to do dis one.

    1. answer is none of these
      answe is
      some cats are animals or no cat is animal
      and
      no cat is proud oor some cat are proud
      two sets of complementary pair

      1. Yes u r correct

  11. Thnks a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. thanks you sir for providing study material.

  13. Can anyone tell me how to find parent statement of given conclusion?

  14. This is excellent! brilliant! amazing! whole ‘mrunal.org’ is extraordinary. Thank you so much for help. And, GOD bless you

  15. sir
    i need some help regarding syllogism my basics are clear just help me on the staements like allwater being sea is a possibility and same in some case its quite confusion the upgraded syllogism kindly reply

  16. Anyone please solve it. I am so confused and please elaborate it. thanks in advance
    1 All good athletes want to win and athletes who want to win, eat well balanced diet therefore, all athletes who don’t eat a well balanced diet are bad athletes.
    If above assumption of the argument are true then which of the following statement must be true
    1 No athlete who doesn’t eat a well diet is good athlete
    2 No bad athlete wants to win
    3 Every athlete who eats a well diet is a good athlete
    4 All athletes who want to win are good athlete.

    2 Which of the following, if true, would refuse to assumption of the argument above?
    1 Bob, the accountant, eats a well balanced diet, but he is not a good athlete.
    2 Ann wants to win, but she is not a good athlete
    3. All Players on the Burros baseball team eat a well balance diet
    4 Andy, the basketball star, does not eat a well balanced diet but she is a good athlete.

    1. yes, these above qs of divya couldnt b answered by ur method sir … pls help us

    2. are the answers 1 & 4 ? confirm so that i can explain because obviously there is no point explaining when i have arrived at wrong [email protected]

  17. Divya and Anand,
    Here is my approach to solve the problem (though different from Mrunal’s approach)

    Problem 1
    ———–
    Statement 1
    ———–
    Since Good athletes want to win but reverse is not always true, i.e. all those who want to win are not Good athelets which means some of them who want to win are good athelets …..

    Ex. Indians love Gandhi, this doesn’t mean those who love Gandhi are Indians
    Are you with me?

    Statement 2
    ————-
    Athelets who wants to win eat a well balenced diet, i.e. all those who eat well balanced diet are those who wants to win. Since good athelets also want to win (Statement 1) so they should fall in this category….
    Reverse is not true (same logic as above) …. Are you with me ?

    Statement 3
    ————–
    Athelets who don’t eat a well balenced diet are bad athelets, i.e here only information is given about those who don’t eat a well balenced are bad athelets => Athelets who wants to win won’t fall under bad athelets category as they eat well balenced diet => Good athelets are part of those who eat well balenced diet (explained above) so they are also not part of bad athelets….. Hope you are with me so far…..

    Conclusions :
    1. Desire to win => well balenced diet
    2. Good Athle t=> Desire to win => Well balenced diet
    3. ill balenced diet => bad athlet

    Now come to options…
    1. No athlete who doesn’t eat a well diet is good athlete — this option is saying that if an athelet who doesn’t eat good diet is not a good athlete… Reason is good athlete is part of those who eat well balenced diet => this is true ….. Do you agree ?

    2. No bad athelet wants to win — immediate feeling tells us that this option is also true, but not always…

    given statement 2 says that those who don’t take well balenced diet are bad athelets i.e. bad athelets won’t be taking well balenced food but there is not information about their desire to win.

    There may be some athelets who wants to qualify (like pass marks in class exam) but are not taking well balenced food => these are bad athelets because they are not taking well balenced food and not because they are not willing to win.
    , => This option we can’t conclude,

    3. Every athlete who eats a well diet is a good athlete
    See the explanation under statement 1 => Option Not true

    4. All athletes who want to win are good athlete
    See the explanation under statement 2 => Option no true

    Problem 2
    ———
    Use the same explanation to solve this, let me know if need explantion for this problem also.

    Answer : Option 4, Since Andy doesn’t eat well balenced diet then he will be a bad athlete, so he can never be good athlete as for becoming good athlete he needs to eat well balenced diet as well as desire to win.

  18. Thnx admin……. its really helpfull fr us……………………..

  19. QUES:-
    ALL NIGHT ARE BAD
    SOME DAY ARE NIGHT
    ALL SORROW ARE HEART
    SOME SORROW ARE BAD

    CONCLUSION:-
    SOME HEART ARE DAY BEING IS A POSSIBILITY
    ALL SORROW ARE BAD BEING IS A POSSIBILITY

    ANS:- BOTH FOLLOWS

    PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ???

    1. please somebody reply to above query

      1. dear anu
        as i know ,in the case of possibility..the conclusion must be gone valid.hope mrunal sir explain it more clearly

        1. thank you for your reply mohit.
          Shall I assume that all possibility cases are true ??
          Sir Mrunal, please clarify as this is real point of confusion.
          Looking f/d for

  20. 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. a,c,d follows

    2. answer must be only A follows

  21. 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. YOU ARE CORRECT AYUSH

    1. 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. 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. 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. we cn also check by ven diagram easily..

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

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

      So your statement is correct.

    4. 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…

  22. 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. your answers are correct.

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

      2. 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. 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. m agree….

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

    1. post full question

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

  26. 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. 1 & 2 are INVALID

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

          1. 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. 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. 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

  27. Vips…
    Thnku bhai…. I was stuck there…
    This seems to b out of de circle thinking… :-)

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

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *