Classification — whole vs part: identify the pair that does NOT show a whole–part relation.

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: Table : Chair

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Three pairs are whole–part mappings. One pair lists two separate items of furniture (co-hyponyms) rather than a whole and its part.



Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Tree : Branch → whole–part.
  • Hand : Finger → whole–part.
  • Room : Floor → whole–part (floor is a component of a room’s structure).
  • Table : Chair → separate items; neither is a part of the other.


Concept / Approach:
Check if removal of the right-hand term leaves the left-hand item incomplete (criterion for part). Only C fails this test.


Step-by-Step Solution:

1) Validate A, B, D as whole–part.2) Identify C as co-hyponyms (furniture items).3) Hence C is the odd one.


Verification / Alternative check:
Structural diagrams of a room include a floor; tables do not include chairs as components.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They keep the same relation.


Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “set” implies part-of; a dining set is an association, not a part relation.


Final Answer:
Table : Chair

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion