n each of the questions below are given three statements followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III, You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from the commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.
| 12. | Statements: All dolls are windows. All bottles are windows. All cars are bottles.
Conclusions:
|
|||||||||
Answer: Option C Explanation:
All cars are bottles. All bottles are windows. Since both the premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal and shouldn’t contain the middle term, So, it follows that ‘All cars are windows’. Thus, I follows. Also, III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds. All dolls are windows. All bottles are windows. Since the middle term ‘windows’ is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. All cars are windows. All bottles are windows. Again, the middle term ‘windows’ is not distributed even once in the premises. So, no definite conclusion follows. |
| 13. | Statements: All tigers are lions. No cow is lion. Some camels are cows.
Conclusions:
|
|||||||||
Answer: Option A Explanation:
All tigers are lions. No cow is lion. Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and shouldn’t contain the middle term. So, it follows that ‘No tiger is cow’. Some camels are cows. No cow is lion. Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that ‘Some camels are not lions’. Some camels are cows. No tiger is cow. Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that ‘Some camels are not tigers’. |
| 14. | Statements: All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees.
Conclusions:
|
|||||||||
Answer: Option A Explanation:
All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees. Since the middle term ‘toys’ is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees. Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn. |
| 15. | Statements: Some rats are cats. Some cats are dogs. No dog is cow.
Conclusions:
|
|||||||||
Answer: Option D Explanation:
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds. Some rats are cats. Some cats are dogs. Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows. Some cats are dogs. No dog is cow. Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that ‘Some cats are not cows’. |
Discover more from aspirant corner
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.