Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only (3)
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This syllogism mixes “some” and a categorical negative (“No dog is a cow”). The task is to check which conclusions must follow without overreaching beyond what is guaranteed by the premises.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Only conclusions that hold for all possible diagrams are valid. A single counterexample diagram that satisfies premises but falsifies a conclusion is enough to reject it.
Step-by-Step Solution:
(3) Some cats are rats: Direct restatement of the first premise (“Some rats are cats”). Valid.(1) No cow is a cat: We only know that no dog is a cow and that some cats overlap with dogs. This says nothing about the remaining cats that are not dogs; they could overlap with cows or not. Hence (1) is not compelled.(2) No dog is a rat: From the premises, it is even possible that the “some cats that are dogs” are the same as the “some rats that are cats,” giving a dog that is also a rat. Therefore the universal negative (2) is not guaranteed.Verification / Alternative check:Construct a diagram where one element lies in R∩C∩D (allowed by the first two premises) and D and W remain disjoint. All premises hold; (2) becomes false, confirming it does not follow. Similarly, allow some C to overlap W (not prohibited). This falsifies (1) while satisfying premises.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Assuming that if some cats are dogs and no dog is a cow, then no cat is a cow. That generalization is invalid because “some cats” does not describe all cats.
Final Answer:Only (3)
Discussion & Comments