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.
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 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 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.
Both the arguments are strong as encouragement to the young entrepreneurs will open up the avenues of setting up of new industries. Hence, it will help in industrial development. consequently, more job opportunities will created.
Yes, Central Government should receive the major share because most of the development programmers are funded by Central Government and it also helps the Central Government to provide and manage the funds to poor states where funds are least collected.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.