Statement I is Particular Affirmative (I-type)
Statement II is Universal Affirmative (A-type).
Horse is a bird. ? Some birds are clouds.
A + I ? No Conclusion
Conclusion I is Converse of the Statement I.
First Premise in Universal Affirmative (A - type).
Second Premise is Particular Affirmative (I - type).
All books are novels. ? Some novels are poems.
A + I ? No Conclusion
Conclusion II is Converse of the second Premise.
Since both the Premises are Universal Affirmative (A - type) and these can be aligned by changing the order of Premises, the Conclusion should be Universal Affirmative.
All Chinese are Asians. ? All Asians are wise.
Therefore, All Chinese are wise. This is conclusion (3).
Here, it should be noted that the Conclusion given in option (1) is the implication of the derived Conclusion and hence it is also valid.
All ponds are stores + Some stores are bags = I + A = No conclusion Hence I does not follow. Some roads are ponds + All ponds are stores = I + A = I = Some roads are stores ? conversion ? Some stores are roads (I) Hence II follows.
All rats are bats + Some bats are desks = I + A = No conclusion Hence I and subsequently II do not follow.
Some sofas are benches + Some benches are tables = I + I = No conclusion. Hence I and II do not follow by combination. However, since they make a complementary E-I pair, either of the two must follow.
First Premise is Particular Affirmative (I ? type).
Second Premise is Universal Affirmative (A ? type).
All doctors are social workers. ? Some social workers are politicians.
A + I ? No Conclusion.
Both the premises are Universal Affirmative. We can align the premises by changing their order. Thus,
X is a lady professor. ? All University professors have a doctorate degree.
We know that,
A + A ? A - type conclusion. Thus our derived conclusion would be "X has a doctorate degree".
All philosophers without exception are men. So no woman can be philosopher.
Clearly, all monkeys cannot sign.
First Premise is Universal Negative (E-type).
Second Premise is Universal Affirmative (A-type).
No cow is chair. ? All chairs are tables.
E + A ? O1 ? type of Conclusion "Some tables are not cows."
Conclusion I is Converse of the second Premise. Therefore, Conclusion I follows.
Conclusions II and IV form Complementary Pair. Therefore, either Conclusion II or IV follows. Thus, Conclusion I and Conclusion II or IV follow.
There is no such options.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.