Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only (3) and (4)
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This is a classic categorical syllogism with two universals and one particular. The goal is to see which conclusions are compelled by subset relations and which are not forced by the existence of “some” in a different subset.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Transitivity of subsets: from Bo ⊆ Bx and Bx ⊆ Bg, we get Bo ⊆ Bg. Particular intersections can be converted: if some Bg are Tr, then some Tr are Bg (but not necessarily boxes or bottles).
Step-by-Step Solution:
(3) All the bottles are bags: By transitivity, Bo ⊆ Bx ⊆ Bg ⇒ Bo ⊆ Bg. Valid.(4) Some trays are bags: Given “Some bags are trays,” by conversion of “some,” “Some trays are bags.” Valid.(1) Some bottles are trays: Not forced. The trays that overlap bags may all lie outside the bottles subset of bags.(2) Some trays are boxes: Similarly, trays need not overlap boxes; they only must overlap bags.Verification / Alternative check:Construct a diagram with Bo inside Bx inside Bg. Place a few Tr elements intersecting Bg but outside Bx. Premises hold; (1) and (2) are false, confirming only (3) and (4) must follow.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Assuming that because trays intersect bags, they must also intersect every subset within bags. That is not logically required.
Final Answer:Only (3) and (4)
Discussion & Comments