First Premise is Particular Affirmative (I?type).
Second Premise is Universal Affirmative (A?type).
Some principals are teachers. ? All teachers are students.
I + A ? I?type of Conclusion "Some principals are students."
Conclusion II is the Converse of it.
First Premise is Universal Affirmative (A?type).
Second Premise is Particular Affirmative (I?type).
All astronomers are scientists. ? Some scientists are shopkeepers.
A + I ? No Conclusion
Conclusion III is the Converse of the second Premise.
First Premise is Particular Affirmative (I?type).
Second Premise is Universal Affirmative (A?type).
All boys are young. ? Some young are managers.
A + I ? No Conclusion
Both the Premises are Universal Affirmative (A-type).
All books are trees. ? All trees are lions.
A + A ? A-type of Conclusion "All books are lions".
This is Conclusion I. Conclusion IV is the Converse of it.
Therefore, Conclusion I and Conclusion IV follow.
First Premise is Universal Negative (E-type).
Second Premise is Universal Affirmative (A-type).
Hari is a man. ? No man is a monkey.
A + E ?E ? type of Conclusion "Hari is not a monkey".
This is Conclusion I.
First Premise is Universal Affirmative (A?type).
Second Premise is Particular Affirmative (I?type).
Some grapes are fruits. ? All fruits are leaves.
I + A ? I?type of Conclusion "Some grapes are leaves."
Conclusion I is the Converse of it.
Both the Premises are Universal Affirmative (A?type).
All parrots are chicks. ? Some chicks are birds.
A + I ? No Conclusion
Conclusion II is the Converse of first Premise.
First Premise is Particular Affirmative (I?type).
Second Premise is Universal Negative (E?type).
Some bags are pockets. ? No pocket is a pouch.
I + E ? O?type of Conclusion "Some bags are not pouches."
This is Conclusion I.
Conclusion II is Converse of the first Premise.
First Premise is Universal Negative (E-type).
Second Premise is Particular Affirmative (I-type)
Some politicians are women. ? No woman can vote.
I + E ? O-tye of Conclusion "Some politicians cannot vote."
Thus, neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows.
Argument I and II both are weak, the argument that government's coffer can be filed only with the tax on agriculture is totally irrelevant secondly, it cannot be said that all the 80% rural population are poor.
Use of computers does have the positive impact, as mentioned in Argument I but the negative impact as mentioned in Argument II is also worth considering. So, both arguments are strong.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.