Statements 1 and 4 are more or less similar.
All tall people cannot be players.
So, Statement 2 seems to be true.
(i) All cities are towns ? Universal Affirmative (A - type).
(ii) Some cities are villages ? Particular Affirmative (I - type).
(iii) No village is a town ? Universal Affirmative (E - type).
(iv) Some villages are not towns ? Particular Negative (O type).
Some villages are cities. ?All cities are towns.
I + A ?I - type of Conclusion "Some villages are towns".
This is Conclusion III.
None of the assumptions is valid. Assumption II is re-statement of the first statement.
All student of a particular class (without any exception) are bright. And, Sarla is not bright. Therefore, Sarla cannot be the student of that particular class.
Some rings are doors + All doors are windows = I + A = I = Some rings are windows ? Conversion ? Some windows are rings(I) Hence II follows. All stones are hammers + No hammer is a ring = A + E = E No stones is a ring ? conversion ? No ring is a stone (E) Hence IV does not follows. No stone is a ring + Some rings are doors = E + I = O* = Some windows are not stones Hence either I or II follows as they form a complementary I-E pair.
A + I and I + I both result is no conclusion.
No woman plays badminton. Therefore, no woman plays tennis.
First statement is Particular Affirmative (I-type).
Second statement is Universal Affirmative (A-type)
Both the statements are already aligned. Thus,
Some Indians are educated. ? All Educated men prefer small families.
We know that,
I + A ? I-type Conclusion. Therefore, our derived Conclusion would be: "Some Indians prefer small families.
Venn-diagrams
All men (without exception) are mortal. And, Ramu is a man. Therefore, Ramu is mortal.
Both the Premises are Universal Affirmative (A - type). These two Premises are not aligned. Now take the Converse of one of the Premises to align them.
If A is a beggar, then A is not rich.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.