Classification – Odd one out (relationship type) Each pair shows a relation between two objects. Three pairs follow the whole–part relation (object → its component), while one pair shows an instrument → product relation. Identify the pair that does not follow the whole–part pattern.

Introduction / Context:
Odd-one-out questions on verbal analogies typically hinge on identifying the governing relation the majority of options share (e.g., whole–part, cause–effect, producer–product, tool–material) and then finding the dissenting pair. This item contrasts whole–part relations with a producer/product relation, testing your ability to name and apply relation types precisely rather than relying on surface familiarity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Book : Page
• Table : Drawer
• Loom : Cloth
• Car : Wheel
• Task: pick the pair that is not whole–part.

Concept / Approach:
Label each pair’s semantic relation. Whole–part means the second noun is a constituent part of the first (pages are parts of a book; wheels are parts of a car). Producer/product (or instrument/product) means the first noun creates or yields the second (a loom produces cloth). Once the majority relation is recognized, eliminating the exception is straightforward.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Book : Page → whole–part (pages constitute a book).Car : Wheel → whole–part (wheels are components of a car).Table : Drawer → commonly construed as whole–part when the table in question includes drawers (a table with drawers). In analogy items, this pairing is widely accepted as a component relation similar to “desk : drawer.”Loom : Cloth → instrument/product (a loom manufactures cloth) → different relation.

Verification / Alternative check:
If you swap the order (part → whole), the semantics break (e.g., “wheel : car” is not whole–part in that direction). This asymmetry reaffirms that for three pairs the second term is a typical component. “Loom : Cloth” does not exhibit componenthood; its direction is maker → made, not whole → part.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Book : Page → legitimate whole–part relation.
• Table : Drawer → acceptable whole–part interpretation in verbal reasoning sets.
• Car : Wheel → canonical whole–part relation.
• None of these → there is a clear single outlier (Loom : Cloth).

Common Pitfalls:
Penalizing “Table : Drawer” because not every table has drawers. In classification items, typical or common componenthood is sufficient to establish relation type. Focus on the intended semantic class, not universality.

Final Answer:
Loom : Cloth