Curioustab Logo Curioustab
Home » Logical Reasoning » Statement and Conclusion

Consider the given statements to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from them. Statement 1: All animals are four-footed. Statement 2: Dog has two legs. Conclusions: I. Dog is not an animal. II. Dog is an animal. Treat this as a logical statement and conclusion question and choose the option that correctly identifies which conclusion or conclusions follow.

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
This question intentionally presents information that conflicts with real world knowledge about dogs. However, logical reasoning problems require you to accept the given statements as true inside the problem world and then derive conclusions that are consistent with them.


Given Data / Assumptions:
Accept the following as true.

  • Statement 1: All animals are four-footed.
  • Statement 2: Dog has two legs.
  • Conclusion I: Dog is not an animal.
  • Conclusion II: Dog is an animal.


Concept / Approach:
“All animals are four-footed” means every animal must have four feet. Statement 2 says that this particular dog has only two legs. We must see whether the dog can still belong to the set Animals if these statements are to remain consistent.


Step-by-Step Solution:

Step 1: From statement 1, any creature that is an animal must have four feet. Having four feet is a necessary condition for membership in the Animal set. Step 2: Statement 2 tells us that Dog has two legs, not four feet. For logical purposes, we treat this as meaning the dog does not satisfy the “four-footed” condition. Step 3: If being an animal requires having four feet, and this particular dog has only two legs, then the dog cannot be an animal without violating the first statement. Step 4: Therefore, to keep both statements true simultaneously, Dog must not belong to the set Animals. This makes conclusion I logically valid. Step 5: Conclusion II says “Dog is an animal.” If we accept this, then Dog, as an animal, must be four-footed, which would contradict statement 2 that Dog has two legs. So conclusion II cannot be true if the statements are accepted.


Verification / Alternative check:
Visualise a set called Animals that contains only four-footed creatures. If Dog had four feet, Dog could be inside this set. But the second statement tells us Dog has only two legs, forcing Dog to remain outside the Animal set to preserve the truth of statement 1. Hence, the only consistent way to interpret the information is to treat Dog as not an animal.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B says only conclusion II follows, but conclusion II directly conflicts with the necessary condition stated in statement 1. Option C says neither follows, but we saw that conclusion I is required for consistency. Option D says both follow, which would force a contradiction between the two statements and the conclusions.


Common Pitfalls:
Candidates often rely on real life knowledge that dogs are animals, which leads them to reject conclusion I. Logical reasoning questions deliberately challenge this by redefining the categories inside the question. You must temporarily abandon everyday facts and stick only to the conditions defined by the statements.


Final Answer:
The only conclusion that keeps the statements consistent is that Dog is not an animal. Therefore, the correct answer is “Only conclusion I follows.”

← Previous Question Next Question→

More Questions from Statement and Conclusion

Discussion & Comments

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