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
No woman plays badminton. Therefore, no woman plays tennis.
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.
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.
Since some of Murphy radios are sold in that shop which sells high standard radios. Therefore, some of the Murphy radios are of high standard.
We can align the premises by converting the second premise.
All children are playful. ? some playfuls are animals.
We know that,
A + I ? No conclusion.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.