Question 1

In this statement and conclusion question involving animals, two statements describe relationships among crows, jackals, and foxes. You must treat the statements as true and decide which of the conclusions I and II logically follow.  Statement I: So…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with logical relations among three sets that correspond to animals: crows, jackals, and foxes. You must interpret the sets abstractly and ignore real world biology. The statements describe overlap between crows and jackals and a complete separation between crows and foxes. You then judge whether the conclusions about jackals and foxes follow from this information. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement I: Some crows are jackals, meaning the intersection between the sets of crows and jackals is non empty. - Statement II: No fox is a crow, meaning the sets foxes and crows are completely disjoint. - Conclusion I: Some jackals are foxes, which asserts that the jackal set and fox set have a non empty intersection. - Conclusion II: Some jackals are not foxes, which asserts that at least one jackal lies outside the fox set. Concept / Approach: Use set notation: let C be the set of crows, J the set of jackals, and F the set of foxes. From Statement I, C ∩ J is non empty. From Statement II, F ∩ C is empty. We are asked about the relation between J and F. Notice that there is at least one element that is both a crow and a jackal, and that no element of C can be in F. This will help us decide whether there must exist jackals that are not foxes. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Because some crows are jackals, there exists an element x such that x ∈ C and x ∈ J. Step 2: Because no fox is a crow, no element of C can also belong to F. Symbolically, C ∩ F is empty. Step 3: Since x is in C, x cannot be in F. Therefore, x is a jackal that is not a fox. Step 4: This directly proves that at least one jackal is not a fox, which means Conclusion II must be true. Step 5: Now check Conclusion I, which says some jackals are foxes. We have no information that connects J directly to F other than the indirect connection through C, and that connection only tells us that some jackals are crows, not that any jackals are foxes. Step 6: It is possible to draw a Venn diagram where J and F have no overlap at all, while still satisfying both statements. In that case, Conclusion I would be false. Step 7: Therefore, Conclusion I does not logically follow, while Conclusion II is necessarily true. Verification / Alternative check: Draw C and J so that they overlap in some region, representing crows that are jackals. Then draw F as a separate set that does not touch C at all, as required by Statement II. Because the overlapping region C ∩ J is prohibited from lying in F, there is at least one jackal in that overlap which cannot be a fox. Thus the existence of a jackal that is not a fox is guaranteed in every diagram, confirming Conclusion II. At the same time, you can place F completely away from J, showing that some jackals are foxes is not forced by the statements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A picks Conclusion I, which is not supported. Option C suggests that exactly one of I or II follows but leaves ambiguity; however, the question requires a specific choice. Option D claims both conclusions follow, which cannot be because one conclusion is optional while the other is necessary. Option E says neither follows, which is wrong because Conclusion II definitely follows from the given information. Common Pitfalls: Some test takers think that if some crows are jackals and no fox is a crow, they lack enough information and might conclude nothing follows. In fact, the overlap between crows and jackals combined with the separation of crows and foxes gives a guaranteed example of a jackal that is not a fox. Another pitfall is to assume that some jackals are foxes based on loose real world associations, which is not allowed in pure logic problems. Final Answer: The correct option is Conclusion II follows, because there must exist at least one jackal that is not a fox, while there is no logical requirement that any jackal has to be a fox.

Question 2

In this statement and conclusion question, you must consider the following statements to be true and decide which conclusions can definitely be drawn.  Statement 1: No man is a monkey. Statement 2: Hari is a man.  Conclusion I: Hari is not a monkey.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question uses very simple statements about sets of men and monkeys to test your ability to draw direct logical consequences. You are told that no man is a monkey and that Hari is a man. From this, you must decide which conclusions concerning Hari and the set of men are logically compelled by the statements. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: No man is a monkey, meaning the sets men and monkeys are completely disjoint. - Statement 2: Hari is a man, meaning Hari belongs to the set of men. - Conclusion I: Hari is not a monkey, which claims that Hari does not belong to the set of monkeys. - Conclusion II: All men are not Hari, which suggests that the set of men consists of individuals who are not equal to Hari, or that Hari is not identical to the entire set of men. Concept / Approach: We interpret the statements in set language. Let M represent the set of men and K represent the set of monkeys. Statement 1 says M ∩ K is empty. Statement 2 says Hari is an element of M. Using these, we check conclusions about Hari and about the structure of the set M. We must distinguish between what we can assert about this specific individual and what we can assert about the entire population of men. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement 2, Hari belongs to M, the set of men. Step 2: From Statement 1, there is no element that belongs to both M and K. That is, no man is a monkey. Step 3: Since Hari is in M and no member of M can be in K, Hari cannot belong to the set K of monkeys. Step 4: Therefore, Hari is not a monkey, which directly supports Conclusion I. Step 5: Now evaluate Conclusion II, which says all men are not Hari. This can be interpreted as saying that no man is identical to Hari except possibly Hari himself, or that the set of men is strictly larger than the singleton {Hari}. Step 6: The original statements do not specify how many men there are. It is logically possible that Hari is the only man in the universe of discourse, in which case every man is Hari. Step 7: Since the number of men is unknown, we cannot definitively say that all men are not Hari, so Conclusion II does not logically follow. Verification / Alternative check: Consider two possible worlds. In World A, suppose there are many men: Hari, Ram, and others. Here, it is true that not all men are Hari. In World B, suppose Hari is the only man. In that world, the statement "all men are not Hari" is false because the only man is Hari. Both worlds satisfy the original statements, but Conclusion II is false in World B. Thus, Conclusion II is not logically forced by the given information, while Conclusion I is true in every world because Hari is a man and no man is a monkey. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B chooses only Conclusion II, which is unsupported. Option C claims both conclusions follow, but as shown, Conclusion II is not logically necessary. Option D says neither conclusion follows, which is incorrect because Conclusion I follows directly and unambiguously from the statements. Option E is more of a commentary than a direct answer to which conclusion follows and does not match the required format of the problem. Common Pitfalls: Many students misread Conclusion II as if it were saying simply that Hari is not all men at once, which feels intuitively true, but logic requires checking whether any scenario consistent with the statements might make the conclusion false. Since we do not know how many men exist, we cannot rule out the case where Hari is the only man, and in that case the wording "all men are not Hari" becomes problematic. Always remember that existence or number of elements is important in these questions. Final Answer: The correct option is Only conclusion I follows, because we can definitely say that Hari is not a monkey, but we cannot draw conclusions about the entire set of men beyond what is explicitly stated.

Question 3

In this statement and conclusion question, you are given two statements about graduates, men, and a thief. You must treat the statements as true and decide which conclusions I and II logically follow.  Statement I: A graduate is a man. Statement II:…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question combines a general statement about graduates and men with a specific statement about a person described as a thief. The task is to work out whether the thief must be a man and whether this implies that some men are thieves. It is a straightforward application of set inclusion and existence reasoning. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement I: A graduate is a man, which means every graduate belongs to the set of men. - Statement II: This thief is a graduate, which means the specific person under discussion belongs to the set of graduates. - Conclusion I: This thief is a man, asserting that the specific thief belongs to the set of men. - Conclusion II: Some men are thieves, asserting that the intersection of the sets men and thieves is non empty. Concept / Approach: Let G represent the set of graduates, M the set of men, and T the set of thieves. From Statement I, G ⊆ M. From Statement II, the specific thief, call this person x, is in G. When an element belongs to a subset, it also belongs to the corresponding superset. This lets us infer that x is in M. Once we know x is both a man and a thief, we can infer the existence of at least one man who is a thief, which supports the second conclusion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement I, every graduate is a man. Symbolically, if y ∈ G then y ∈ M. Step 2: From Statement II, the specific thief x is a graduate, so x ∈ G. Step 3: Combining these facts, x ∈ G implies x ∈ M. Therefore, the thief is also a man, which supports Conclusion I. Step 4: We also know that x is both a thief and a man; x belongs to T and M simultaneously. Step 5: This means the intersection M ∩ T is non empty, because it contains at least the element x. Step 6: Hence there is at least one man who is a thief. This is exactly what Conclusion II states: some men are thieves. Step 7: Therefore, both Conclusion I and Conclusion II logically follow from the two given statements. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the universe of people. First mark the set of graduates and place it fully inside the set of men, reflecting Statement I. Then designate a specific individual x as a thief and also place x inside the graduates set, reflecting Statement II. The picture now shows x inside both the set of men and the set of thieves. This confirms that the thief is a man and that at least one man is a thief. Any interpretation that satisfies the original statements will always produce the same logical consequence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A chooses only Conclusion I, ignoring the fact that the existence of a man who is a thief also proves Conclusion II. Option B chooses only Conclusion II, but it misses the straightforward consequence that the specific thief is a man. Option C says neither follows, which is inconsistent with the clear logical chain from the statements. Option E suggests that exactly one of the conclusions must be true, which is also wrong since both are true in every valid interpretation. Common Pitfalls: A typical error is to assume that when we talk about "some men are thieves," we need a large group or multiple examples. In logic, "some" means at least one. As soon as you have identified a single individual who belongs to both sets, the statement "some men are thieves" becomes true. Another mistake is to treat the phrase "this thief" as if it could somehow be outside the set of graduates despite Statement II explicitly including the thief in that set. Final Answer: The correct option is Both I and II follows, because the thief, being a graduate, must be a man, and this guarantees that at least one man is a thief.

Question 4

In this statement and conclusion question, you must consider the given statements as true and decide which conclusions can definitely be drawn.  Statement 1: Some girls are stars. Statement 2: Meena is a girl.  Conclusion I: Meena is a star. Conclus…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question involves reasoning with partial information about the sets girls and stars, along with a specific individual named Meena. The aim is to see whether we can conclude that Meena belongs to the set of stars or that some stars are outside the set of girls. You must resist the temptation to over interpret the phrase "some girls are stars" and instead work with its exact logical meaning. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: Some girls are stars, which means the intersection of the sets girls and stars is non empty. - Statement 2: Meena is a girl, which means Meena belongs to the set of girls. - Conclusion I: Meena is a star, which asserts that Meena belongs to the star set. - Conclusion II: Some stars are not girls, which asserts that there is at least one star outside the set of girls. Concept / Approach: Let G represent the set of girls and S represent the set of stars. The statement "some girls are stars" can be written as G ∩ S is non empty. This tells us that there exist at least some individuals who are both girls and stars, but it does not identify them. The fact that Meena is a girl places her in G but does not tell us whether she lies in the overlapping part with S or in the part of G outside S. Similarly, the statement does not specify whether S has members outside G. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement 1, there exist some individuals who are both girls and stars, but their identities are unknown. Step 2: From Statement 2, Meena is in G, the set of girls. Step 3: Meena could be one of the girls who are stars, or she could be one of the girls who are not stars. The information given does not specify which case applies. Step 4: Because we cannot be sure that Meena belongs to the subset of girls that are stars, Conclusion I, "Meena is a star," does not logically follow. Step 5: Now consider Conclusion II, "Some stars are not girls." For this to follow, S must have at least one element outside G. Step 6: However, Statement 1 only tells us that some portion of G overlaps S. It does not state whether S has any part outside G or lies completely inside G. Step 7: It is possible that all stars are girls, that no stars are girls except a few, or anything in between. Since the statements do not constrain S beyond having some overlap with G, we cannot conclude that some stars are not girls. Verification / Alternative check: Construct two example diagrams. In Diagram A, let all stars be girls, so S is entirely inside G. This satisfies the statement "some girls are stars" and makes Conclusion II false because no star is outside G. In Diagram B, let S overlap G partly but extend outside G as well. This satisfies the same statement but makes Conclusion II true. Because the same statements can lead to different truth values for Conclusion II, it does not follow logically. Similarly, Meena can be placed either in the overlapping region G ∩ S or in the part of G that is outside S without breaking any statement, so Conclusion I also does not follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A assumes Meena is one of the girls who are stars, which is not guaranteed. Option B assumes that S definitely extends beyond G, which we cannot infer. Option C claims both conclusions follow, which is even stronger and clearly false. Option E describes a possibility, but the question asks which conclusions must follow, not what may be possible. The only accurate choice is that neither of the given conclusions is logically forced. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to think that "some girls are stars" implies that every girl involved must be a star, especially when a specific name is mentioned. Another error is to assume that if two sets overlap, at least one of them must have elements outside the other. In fact, two sets can overlap with one completely contained in the other, or each having non overlapping parts. Logical questions require you to consider all consistent possibilities, not just the ones that feel most natural at first glance. Final Answer: The correct option is Neither conclusion I nor II follows, because we cannot be sure that Meena is among the girls who are stars, and we cannot be sure that there is any star outside the set of girls.

Question 5

In this statement and conclusion question, you are given a conditional statement about hard work and success. You must treat the statement as true and decide which conclusions I and II logically follow.  Statement: If he works hard, he will be succe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem uses a simple conditional statement about hard work and success to test your understanding of what can and cannot be logically inferred. The statement has the structure "If he works hard, then he will be successful." From this, you must judge whether it follows that he actually is a hard worker and whether it follows that hard work is effective in achieving success. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement: If he works hard, he will be successful in life. Symbolically, if H then S, where H stands for "he works hard" and S stands for "he is successful." - Conclusion I: He is a hard worker, which asserts H is true. - Conclusion II: Hard work pays, which is a general interpretation that hard work leads to success. Concept / Approach: The logical form of the statement is a conditional. A conditional tells us what happens if the condition holds, but it does not by itself tell us that the condition actually holds. To claim that he is a hard worker would require evidence that H is true, not only that H implies S. However, the statement does express a belief in a cause effect relationship between hard work and success. That belief can be interpreted as a general principle that hard work is rewarded with success, which aligns with Conclusion II. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The statement "If he works hard, he will be successful" tells us: whenever he works hard, success in life follows. Step 2: This is a conditional promise or rule. It says nothing directly about whether he actually works hard. Step 3: Therefore, we cannot conclude from this alone that he is currently a hard worker, so Conclusion I does not logically follow. Step 4: The statement clearly expresses the idea that there is a positive relationship between hard work and success. Essentially, it claims that hard work leads to success for this person. Step 5: Conclusion II, "Hard work pays," is a concise way of summarizing this cause effect relationship: if someone works hard, success results. Step 6: Because the given conditional explicitly states that working hard is sufficient for success, Conclusion II is logically supported as an interpretation of the principle behind the statement. Verification / Alternative check: Think of the statement as a rule like "If you press the switch, the light will turn on." This rule does not tell you that you have pressed the switch, only what will happen if you do. Similarly, "If he works hard, he will be successful" does not assert that he is working hard now. However, it does express that hard work is effective in producing success for him. In everyday language, this is exactly what people mean when they say that hard work pays off. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A says both conclusions follow, but we have seen that Conclusion I does not follow from a conditional statement without additional information. Option B says only Conclusion I follows, which gets the logic backwards. Option D says neither follows, which ignores the clear general principle contained in the conditional. Option E claims Conclusion II is only an assumption, but it is in fact a direct restatement of the idea that if he works hard then he will be successful. Common Pitfalls: A very common error is confusing "if H then S" with "H is true." Many learners assume that having a rule implies the condition is already in effect, which is logically incorrect. Another pitfall is to treat Conclusion II as too general, but note that the statement is framed as a reliable connection between hard work and success in his life, which is precisely what the phrase "hard work pays" expresses in informal language. Final Answer: The correct option is Only II follows, because the statement supports the idea that hard work leads to success, but it does not guarantee that he is currently or habitually working hard.

Question 6

In the following logical reasoning question, two statements are given, each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known mathematical facts. You must de…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question is based on the standard statement and conclusion pattern that often appears in competitive exams. The statements talk about relationships between three mathematical ideas: polynomials, linear equations, and quadratic equations. Your task is to decide which of the suggested conclusions necessarily follows from the given statements and not from any outside knowledge about actual mathematics. Given Data / Assumptions: We must accept the following as logically true within the question context, even if they sound odd in real mathematics. Statement I: Some polynomials are linear equations. Statement II: Some linear equations are quadratic. Conclusion I: Polynomials are quadratic. Conclusion II: Linear equations are quadratic. The word “some” in logic means “at least one, possibly more”. Concept / Approach: The key idea is categorical logic. A statement of the form “Some A are B” creates a partial overlap between sets A and B but does not cover all elements of either set. From two separate “some” statements we generally cannot jump to “all” type conclusions such as “all A are C”. We must check whether the data forces a definite universal relationship or only suggests a possible one. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From “Some polynomials are linear equations” we only know that there is at least one polynomial that is also a linear equation. We do not know that every polynomial is a linear equation. Step 2: From “Some linear equations are quadratic” we only know that there is at least one linear equation that is quadratic. We do not know that every linear equation is quadratic. Step 3: To make Conclusion I valid, the statements would need to force that all polynomials are quadratic. The two “some” statements never guarantee this. The overlapping parts could involve different members of the linear equation set. Step 4: To make Conclusion II valid, the statements would need to force that every linear equation is quadratic. Again, we only know that some linear equations are quadratic, not all. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a diagram with three sets: P for polynomials, L for linear equations, and Q for quadratic equations. The first statement says there is at least one element in P ∩ L. The second says there is at least one element in L ∩ Q. It is possible that these two overlapping parts of L are completely different elements. So there is no compulsion that all P are in Q or that all L are in Q. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A claims only conclusion I follows, which is incorrect because the data never forces all polynomials to be quadratic. Option B claims only conclusion II follows, which also fails because the statements do not say that all linear equations are quadratic. Option D says both conclusions follow, which demands both universal claims to be true, and this is even stronger than what the data supports. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to treat “some” as if it were “all”. Many test takers see two overlapping relations and assume a full chain, such as “if some A are B and some B are C, then A are C”. This is not valid in strict logical reasoning. You must resist the temptation to rely on outside mathematical understanding and focus purely on the logical form of the statements. Final Answer: The only logically valid conclusion is that neither I nor II necessarily follows, so the correct choice is “Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.”

Question 7

Consider the given statements to be absolutely true and decide which of the conclusions can definitely be drawn. Statement 1: When water is cooled, it turns into ice. Statement 2: When water is heated, it turns into steam. Conclusion I: Water is a s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question uses a simple science context about water changing into ice and steam, but the real focus is logical reasoning. You must decide which conclusion is forced by the given statements. The key is to recognise that the statements describe what happens to water under certain conditions, not what water always is in general. Given Data / Assumptions: Accept the following as true within the question. Statement 1: When water is cooled, it turns into ice. Statement 2: When water is heated, it turns into steam. Conclusion I: Water is a solid. Conclusion II: Water is a gas. We must assume nothing beyond the text of the statements. Concept / Approach: In statement and conclusion questions, we check whether a conclusion necessarily follows from the statements. A conclusion is valid only if it must be true every time the statements are true. If a conclusion is only sometimes true or could be false even though the statements hold, then it does not follow. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Statement 1 describes a conditional situation: when water is cooled, it becomes ice. That tells us about the effect of cooling, not the permanent nature of water. Step 2: Statement 2 similarly describes what happens when water is heated; it becomes steam. Again, this is about a process under specific conditions. Step 3: Conclusion I claims simply that “Water is a solid.” This suggests that water by nature is always a solid, which is not forced by the statements. The statements clearly allow water to be ice in some conditions, but they do not deny that it can be liquid or gas. Step 4: Conclusion II claims “Water is a gas.” This again makes an absolute claim about the inherent state of water and ignores the other possibilities mentioned in the statements. The statements show water can become steam when heated, but do not claim that water is always steam. Verification / Alternative check: If both statements are accepted, water can exist as ice when cooled and as steam when heated. In normal situations, water can be in liquid form as well, although the question does not need that fact. What matters is that no conclusion about a single permanent state can be drawn solely from the given conditional statements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (only conclusion I follows) and option B (only conclusion II follows) both treat one conditional outcome as the permanent nature of water, which is not justified. Option C (both conclusions follow) is even more extreme, since it tries to claim two mutually incompatible permanent states at once. None of these options respect the conditional structure of the given statements. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to convert “when X happens, Y results” into “Y is always true.” Logical reasoning questions often use simple scientific facts to tempt such overgeneralisation. You must pay attention to words like “when,” “if,” and other condition markers and avoid reading more than what is given. Final Answer: Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II is logically forced by the statements. Therefore, the correct answer is “Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.”

Question 8

In the following logical reasoning question, two statements are given, each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if they appear to differ from common facts. You must decide which of the conclusion…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem is a classic example of categorical logic using the sets “white”, “black”, and “green”. You are given two statements and then two possible conclusions. The task is to check which conclusion is necessarily true if we accept the statements as absolutely correct, regardless of our real world understanding of colours. Given Data / Assumptions: We accept the following as true. Statement I: Some white is black. Statement II: No black is green. Conclusion I: Some white is green. Conclusion II: Some white is not green. “Some” means at least one element, possibly more. Concept / Approach: We use Venn diagram style reasoning. From “Some white is black” we know there is overlap between white objects and black objects. From “No black is green” we know the black region is completely separate from the green region. We then investigate what must be true about white and green. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From “Some white is black” we mark at least one element in the intersection of White and Black. This element is both white and black. Step 2: From “No black is green” we separate the entire Black set from the Green set. Anything that is black cannot be green. Step 3: The element that is both white and black cannot be green, because it is black and no black is green. So at least one white object is definitely not green. Step 4: Therefore “Some white is not green” is guaranteed to be true. This corresponds exactly to conclusion II. Step 5: There is no information that forces any white object to be green. It is possible that every white object happens to be outside Green, so conclusion I is not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine three circles: White, Black, and Green. Place at least one point in the overlap of White and Black. Because the Black circle does not touch the Green circle at all, that point can never be in Green. So there is at least one white point that is outside Green. However, you can still draw the Green circle away from White so that there is no overlap between them at all. In that picture, conclusion II remains true, but conclusion I becomes false. This proves that only conclusion II is logically forced. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A claims only conclusion I follows, which is incorrect because there is no compulsory overlap between white and green. Option C says either I or II follows, suggesting one of them must be true but not both; however, we know II must be true. Option D says both conclusions follow, which is incorrect because conclusion I may fail in a valid arrangement of the sets. Common Pitfalls: Students often guess that if some white is black and black is separated from green, then nothing can be said about white and green. In fact, one thing is certain: the white objects that are also black cannot be green, so they provide a definite example of white that is not green. Missing this subtle deduction is a common error. Final Answer: The correct logical conclusion is conclusion II only. Thus the right option is “Only conclusion II follows.”

Question 9

Arrange the given English words in the order in which they would appear in a standard dictionary, and then choose the correct sequence. The words are: i. Temerity ii. Temporary iii. Tempered iv. Temperature. Identify the correct alphabetical order o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to arrange words in the exact order in which they would appear in a dictionary. Such problems depend on careful comparison of letters in each position. The four words given are closely related in spelling, so you must proceed step by step and compare them letter by letter. Given Data / Assumptions: The words that need to be ordered are: i. Temerity ii. Temporary iii. Tempered iv. Temperature We assume standard English dictionary rules, where words are ordered alphabetically from left to right. Concept / Approach: To place words in dictionary order, compare them character by character. The first differing letter decides which word comes first. If one word is a prefix of another, then the shorter word comes earlier. All four words begin with the letters “tem”, so the key differences appear in the following characters. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Compare the first few letters of each word: all begin with “t e m”. So far they are equal. Step 2: Look at the next letter. For “Temerity” the fourth letter is “e”, giving “t e m e”. For “Temporary”, “Tempered”, and “Temperature” the fourth letter is “p”, giving “t e m p”. Since “e” comes before “p”, “Temerity” (i) comes first in the dictionary. Step 3: Now focus on the remaining three: “Temporary”, “Tempered”, and “Temperature”, all starting with “temp”. Compare after “temp”. For “Tempered” we get “temper...”, for “Temperature” we also get “temper...”, and for “Temporary” we get “tempo...” Step 4: Between “temper...” and “tempo...”, the letter sequence “e” versus “o” after “temp” decides. Since “e” comes before “o”, both “Tempered” and “Temperature” must come before “Temporary”. Step 5: Now compare “Tempered” and “Temperature”. Up to “temper” they are the same. Then we have “Tempered” with the next letter “e” and “Temperature” with the next letter “a” (“temper e d” versus “temper a t u r e”). The letter “a” comes before “e”, so “Temperature” (iv) appears before “Tempered” (iii). Verification / Alternative check: Summarising the comparisons gives the order: first i. Temerity, then iv. Temperature, then iii. Tempered, and finally ii. Temporary. This matches the sequence “i, iv, iii, ii”. Cross checking each adjacent pair confirms the consistency with alphabetical rules. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B “iii, ii, iv, i” incorrectly places “Tempered” before “Temperature” and moves “Temerity” to the end. Option C “i, ii, iii, iv” wrongly places “Temporary” before “Tempered” and “Temperature”. Option D “iv, iii, i, ii” ignores that any word starting with “teme” must come before those starting with “temp”. Common Pitfalls: Many test takers look only at the first different group such as “temper” and “tempo” but forget to re compare words that share an even longer common prefix, like “Tempered” and “Temperature”. Another slip is ignoring that even a slight change from “e” to “p” or “a” can change the entire order. Final Answer: The correct dictionary order of the words is i, iv, iii, ii, so option “i, iv, iii, ii” is the right choice.

Question 10

In the following logical reasoning question, two statements are given, each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, and then decide which con…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem involves standard syllogistic reasoning about categories: shawls, carpets, and pullovers. You are given two universal statements about inclusion and exclusion of sets and must decide which conclusion is forced by these statements. Such questions are best understood using Venn diagram style thinking. Given Data / Assumptions: We accept the following statements as true. Statement I: All shawls are carpets. Statement II: No carpet is a pullover. Conclusion I: No shawls are pullovers. Conclusion II: All carpets are shawls. Concept / Approach: “All shawls are carpets” means the set of shawls is completely inside the set of carpets. “No carpet is a pullover” means the carpet set and pullover set do not overlap at all. We need to see what these relations imply for shawls and pullovers and for carpets and shawls. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement I, every shawl is also a carpet. So the Shawl set is a subset of the Carpet set. Step 2: From statement II, there is no element that is both a carpet and a pullover. The Carpet and Pullover sets are completely disjoint. Step 3: Since every shawl is a carpet, and no carpet is a pullover, any shawl can never be a pullover. Therefore, the conclusion “No shawls are pullovers” is necessarily true. Step 4: Conclusion II claims “All carpets are shawls.” This would mean the Carpet set is equal to or contained inside the Shawl set. The statements never say that. They only say that shawls are carpets, not that every carpet must be a shawl. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three sets. Put the Shawl circle completely inside the Carpet circle. Then place a Pullover circle completely separate from the Carpet circle. In this diagram, no element of Shawl can reach the Pullover set, so conclusion I always holds. At the same time you can easily imagine extra carpets that are not shawls, which shows that conclusion II is not forced. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B states only conclusion II follows, which is incorrect because the data does not support “All carpets are shawls”. Option C claims neither conclusion follows, but we saw that conclusion I is solidly supported. Option D says both conclusions follow, which again fails because conclusion II is not guaranteed. Common Pitfalls: A common trap is to reverse the direction of “All A are B” and assume “All B are A”. Here, some learners mistakenly treat “All shawls are carpets” as if it also meant “All carpets are shawls”, which is logically invalid. Inclusion is one directional unless stated otherwise. Final Answer: Only conclusion I is logically valid. Therefore, the correct answer is “Only conclusion I follows.”

Question 11

In the following logical reasoning question, two general statements about shopping behaviour are given, followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to treat the statements as true even if they appear to conflict with common experience, and then d…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines how to interpret general statements about behaviour and then judge whether the suggested conclusions necessarily follow. The situation concerns attitudes of males and females towards window shopping. The correct reasoning must stay within what is clearly implied by the statements and avoid adding extra assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: Accept the following as true for the purpose of this problem. Statement I: Women generally prefer window shopping. Statement II: Males generally are not fond of window shopping and they feel that it is a sheer waste of time. Conclusion I: Shopping behaviour is different for males and females. Conclusion II: If males go for window shopping, they do not utilise much time in selecting a product. The word “generally” indicates common tendency, not absolute rules. Concept / Approach: In statement and conclusion questions, we ask whether the conclusion is a necessary outcome of the given statements. If the conclusion goes beyond what is clearly implied or introduces a new idea, it does not follow. We focus on how the two groups feel about window shopping and what can safely be deduced. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement I, women usually like or prefer window shopping. Step 2: From statement II, males usually do not like window shopping and consider it a waste of time. Step 3: When one group tends to prefer an activity and another group tends to dislike the same activity, it is reasonable to say that their behaviour or attitude towards that activity is different. So conclusion I directly summarises the combined information from the statements. Step 4: Conclusion II introduces a new detail: it talks about how much time males utilise in selecting a product when they actually go window shopping. The statements mention only that males are not fond of window shopping and that they feel it wastes time. They do not say they would rush the process or spend little time if they do choose to go. Verification / Alternative check: Even if males feel that window shopping is a waste of time, it is still possible that some males may be forced to go and may end up taking a lot of time because of indecision, external pressure, or other reasons. The given statements do not rule out such situations. Hence, conclusion II is not guaranteed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A states that only conclusion II follows, ignoring the clear contrast in attitudes described by the statements. Option B claims both conclusions follow, but we saw that conclusion II is not a necessary outcome. Option C says neither conclusion follows, which is incorrect because conclusion I is a straightforward summary of the different attitudes expressed. Common Pitfalls: Test takers sometimes read too much into words like “waste of time” and imagine many additional behavioural details. Logical reasoning questions require you to stay strictly within what is stated or inevitably implied. Feeling that an activity wastes time does not automatically mean the person will always spend very little time on it. Final Answer: Only conclusion I is logically supported by the statements. Thus, the correct choice is “Only conclusion I follows.”

Question 12

In the following logical reasoning question, two categorical statements are given about animals, followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they appear unrealistic, and then decide which conclusion …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a standard syllogism question where you are given two “all” type statements describing relationships between three sets: horses, bullocks, and goats. Your goal is to see what must logically follow from the chain of inclusions, without worrying about whether the statements are realistic in everyday life. Given Data / Assumptions: Treat the following as true. Statement I: All horses are bullocks. Statement II: All bullocks are goats. Conclusion I: All horses are goats. Conclusion II: All goats are horses. Concept / Approach: When we have “All A are B” and “All B are C”, then we can deduce “All A are C”. However, we generally cannot reverse these relations without further information. We represent these as nested sets: the set A lies inside B, which lies inside C. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement I, every horse belongs to the set of bullocks. So the Horse set is inside the Bullock set. Step 2: From statement II, every bullock belongs to the set of goats. So the Bullock set is inside the Goat set. Step 3: Joining these two relations, every horse, being a bullock, is also a goat. That means “All horses are goats” is necessarily true, so conclusion I follows. Step 4: Conclusion II states “All goats are horses”, which would require the Goat set to be contained inside the Horse set. None of the statements say that. There could be goats that are not bullocks and certainly not horses. Verification / Alternative check: Visualise three nested circles. Place the Horse circle inside the Bullock circle. Then place the Bullock circle inside the Goat circle. Clearly, every horse lies within the Goat circle. But you can easily imagine many goats that are outside the Bullock circle and therefore also outside the Horse circle. This shows conclusion I is valid, but conclusion II is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B states only conclusion II follows, which is wrong because conclusion II reverses the direction of containment. Option C states neither conclusion follows, ignoring the straightforward chain that gives conclusion I. Option D says both conclusions follow, which would require the Goat set and Horse set to be equal, and that is never implied by the given information. Common Pitfalls: Many learners mistakenly assume that if all horses are goats, then all goats must be horses. This confusion arises from reversing the “all” statement. Remember that “All A are B” does not mean “All B are A”. Logical reasoning questions often test exactly this misunderstanding. Final Answer: The only conclusion that necessarily follows is conclusion I. Therefore, the correct answer is “Only conclusion I follows.”

Question 13

In this logical reasoning question, you are given two statements about cakes, pastries, and bread, followed by two conclusions. You must treat the statements as true, even if they seem unusual, and then decide which conclusion or conclusions logical…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is another example of syllogistic reasoning involving food items: cakes, pastries, and bread. The problem checks whether you can correctly trace set relations and identify which conclusions are forced by the given statements. Given Data / Assumptions: The following statements are treated as fully true. Statement I: All cakes are pastries. Statement II: Some bread are cakes. Conclusion I: No pastries are bread. Conclusion II: Some bread are pastries. “Some” means at least one, possibly more. Concept / Approach: If all cakes are pastries, then the Cake set lies inside the Pastry set. If some bread are cakes, then at least some elements in the Bread set are also in the Cake set. Combining these two, those bread items must also lie inside the Pastry set. This directly suggests a connection between bread and pastries. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement I, every cake is a pastry. So Cake is a subset of Pastry. Step 2: From statement II, at least one bread item is a cake. Therefore, there is at least one element in the intersection of Bread and Cake. Step 3: Because every cake is inside the Pastry set, that bread item, which is a cake, must also be a pastry. So there exists at least one object that is both bread and pastry. Step 4: Hence, “Some bread are pastries” is certainly true. This matches conclusion II. Step 5: Conclusion I states “No pastries are bread.” This would mean the Pastry and Bread sets do not overlap. We just found that there is at least one item that is both bread and pastry, so conclusion I cannot be true. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three sets. Place Cake inside Pastry. Mark a point where Bread and Cake intersect. Because this point is in Cake and Cake lies inside Pastry, that same point must be in Pastry as well. So there is a definite overlap between Bread and Pastry. This visually confirms that conclusion II must hold and conclusion I must fail. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A claims only conclusion I follows, which directly contradicts the set relations. Option C claims both follow, but two contradictory statements cannot both be true in standard logic. Option D says neither follows, which ignores the clear deduction that some bread are pastries. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mentally separate bakery categories and assume that bread and pastries do not overlap. However, logical reasoning questions do not care about real life labels. You must work strictly with the relations given. Once you accept that some bread are cakes and all cakes are pastries, you must accept that some bread are pastries. Final Answer: The only valid conclusion is conclusion II. Therefore, the correct choice is “Only conclusion II follows.”

Question 14

Consider the following logical statements to be true and decide which conclusions can definitely be drawn from them. Statements: 1. All fish are tortoise. 2. No tortoise is a crocodile. Conclusions: I. No crocodile is a fish. II. No fish is a crocod…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Here you must analyse two statements about fish, tortoise, and crocodiles and then check which of the given conclusions are logically forced. This is a standard example of combining “all” and “no” type statements to find which sets are disjoint. Given Data / Assumptions: Take the following as fully true. Statement 1: All fish are tortoise. Statement 2: No tortoise is a crocodile. Conclusion I: No crocodile is a fish. Conclusion II: No fish is a crocodile. Concept / Approach: “All fish are tortoise” means Fish is a subset of Tortoise. “No tortoise is a crocodile” means the Tortoise and Crocodile sets have no common elements. If every fish is inside Tortoise and Tortoise has no overlap with Crocodile, then Fish also has no overlap with Crocodile. We then express this disjoint relation in both possible word orders. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement 1, every fish lies in the Tortoise set. There is no fish outside Tortoise. Step 2: From statement 2, Tortoise and Crocodile are disjoint sets. No animal can be both a tortoise and a crocodile. Step 3: Since all fish are inside the Tortoise set and the Tortoise set is completely separate from the Crocodile set, it is impossible for any fish to be a crocodile. So “No fish is a crocodile” is necessarily true and matches conclusion II. Step 4: If no fish is a crocodile, the same fact can also be stated as “No crocodile is a fish.” The phrase “No A is B” automatically means “No B is A.” So conclusion I is also necessarily true. Verification / Alternative check: Draw a large circle for Tortoise. Inside it draw a smaller circle for Fish. Draw a separate circle for Crocodile completely outside Tortoise. There is no overlap between Fish and Crocodile since Fish is entirely within Tortoise and Tortoise does not meet Crocodile. The disjointness between Fish and Crocodile can be described in both directions, reinforcing both conclusions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A says only conclusion I follows, ignoring that conclusion II is the same relation expressed with the sets reversed. Option B says only conclusion II follows and similarly ignores the equivalent restatement in conclusion I. Option D claims neither follows, which conflicts with the clearly implied disjointness between Fish and Crocodile. Common Pitfalls: Many learners forget that “No A is B” is symmetric. If no fish is a crocodile, then automatically no crocodile is a fish. The exam may include both forms as separate conclusions to test this understanding. Final Answer: Both conclusions I and II necessarily follow from the statements. Hence, the correct answer is “Both conclusions I and II follow.”

Question 15

Consider the given proverb like statement to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from it. Statement: Honesty is the best policy. Conclusion I: All people should be honest. Conclusion II: Only some…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question uses a famous proverb, “Honesty is the best policy,” and asks you to judge which conclusions can be logically drawn from it. The challenge is to separate what the statement literally says from what people commonly believe or recommend in real life. Given Data / Assumptions: Accept the statement as given. Statement: Honesty is the best policy. Conclusion I: All should be honest. Conclusion II: Only some people should be honest. Concept / Approach: The statement merely gives a value judgment comparing honesty with other possible policies. It says that honesty is the best policy, meaning that among all policies, honesty is considered superior. However, it does not explicitly quantify how many people must follow this policy. Logical conclusions must be strictly derived from what is clearly expressed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret the statement: “Honesty is the best policy” suggests that honesty is the most desirable or beneficial approach in general. Step 2: The statement does not mention “all people” or “only some people” directly. It simply evaluates one quality (honesty) as the best when compared to others. Step 3: Conclusion I says “All should be honest.” While this might sound morally appealing, it is not a logical necessity derived from the statement. The statement does not issue a universal directive to every person. Step 4: Conclusion II says “Only some people should be honest.” This is even more specific and contradicts the spirit of calling honesty the best policy. The original statement does not support restricting honesty to a subset of people. Verification / Alternative check: If honesty is the best policy, it could be followed by all people, by many people, or even by very few people. The statement alone does not fix the number. Both scenarios “all are honest” and “some are honest” are compatible with the proverb. Therefore, neither of the two conclusions is forced, because they both introduce new restrictions on how many people must follow this policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A assumes that the proverb directly commands everyone to be honest, which is more of a moral interpretation than a logical deduction. Option B suggests that only some people should be honest, which also cannot be supported and is contrary to the general nature of the statement. Option C claims both conclusions follow, but they contradict each other in quantity, and the original statement does not support either specifically. Common Pitfalls: Many learners treat proverbs as direct universal rules, forgetting that logical reasoning requires explicit wording. The exam is testing whether you can distinguish between what feels morally right and what is strictly expressed in the text. Final Answer: Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II can be definitely drawn from the statement. So the correct answer is “Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.”

Question 16

Consider the given statements to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from them. Statements: Many books are rocks. All rocks are clips. Conclusions: I. Some books are clips. II. No rock is a book. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question works with somewhat strange category labels like books, rocks, and clips. Still, the logical structure is straightforward. You must infer what necessarily follows from the relationships described by the statements, ignoring real world meanings. Given Data / Assumptions: Take the following as entirely true. Statement 1: Many books are rocks. Statement 2: All rocks are clips. Conclusion I: Some books are clips. Conclusion II: No rock is a book. “Many books are rocks” at least implies “Some books are rocks”. Concept / Approach: “Many books are rocks” tells us there is an overlap between the sets Books and Rocks. “All rocks are clips” places Rocks inside the set Clips. Combining these, the overlapping portion of Books and Rocks must lie inside Clips as well, giving a certain relation between Books and Clips. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement 1, we know that there are several items that are both books and rocks. So the intersection Books ∩ Rocks is non empty. Step 2: From statement 2, each rock belongs to the set Clips. So Rocks is a subset of Clips. Step 3: Any item that is in Books ∩ Rocks automatically lies in Clips as well, because it is a rock. Therefore at least some books are also clips. Step 4: This makes conclusion I, “Some books are clips,” necessarily true. Step 5: Conclusion II states, “No rock is a book.” This directly contradicts statement 1, which clearly says that many books are rocks. If many books are rocks, then at least some rocks are books, so it is impossible that no rock is a book. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three sets. Mark an overlapping area for Books and Rocks. Then draw the Rocks set fully inside Clips. The overlapping part of Books and Rocks lies inside Clips as well, proving that some books must be clips. This picture also shows that there certainly exist rocks that are books, so conclusion II is false. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B says only conclusion II follows, but conclusion II conflicts with the very first statement. Option C says both follow, which is impossible because the two conclusions contradict each other in light of the statements. Option D says neither follows, but we have just established that conclusion I is clearly valid. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes test takers are confused by the word “many” and think that the statement is vague. For logical purposes, “many” here guarantees at least “some”. That is enough to deduce conclusions about set intersections. Final Answer: Only conclusion I can be definitely drawn from the statements. Therefore, the correct option is “Only conclusion I follows.”

Question 17

In this logical reasoning problem, two statements about shirts and t-shirts are given, followed by two conclusions I and II. You must consider the statements to be true, even if they seem unusual, and then decide which conclusion or conclusions logi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with the categories shirts, t-shirts, and cotton. Two statements define how these sets are related, and you must check which conclusions are compelled by those relations. It is essential to stay inside the information given and not rely on assumptions about real garments. Given Data / Assumptions: We accept these as true. Statement 1: No shirts are t-shirts. Statement 2: All t-shirts are cotton. Conclusion I: Some shirts are cotton. Conclusion II: No t-shirts are shirts. Concept / Approach: “No shirts are t-shirts” means the sets Shirts and T-shirts are completely disjoint. “All t-shirts are cotton” means that the entire T-shirt set lies inside the Cotton set. We check which conclusions are directly supported by these relations. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret statement 1. If no shirts are t-shirts, then any item that is a shirt cannot be a t-shirt. This also means no t-shirt is a shirt because the exclusion works both ways for the same two sets. Step 2: Thus, “No t-shirts are shirts” is simply a restatement of statement 1, using the sets in reversed order. Step 3: Statement 2 says all t-shirts are cotton, placing the T-shirt set inside the Cotton set, but it says nothing explicitly about shirts and cotton. Step 4: Conclusion I claims that “Some shirts are cotton.” For this to follow, we would need at least one shirt confirmed as cotton. The given statements do not provide any information that directly connects shirts with cotton. Step 5: Therefore, conclusion I cannot be guaranteed, while conclusion II is clearly and directly implied. Verification / Alternative check: Draw a Cotton set. Inside it, place the T-shirt set. Draw a Shirts set completely disjoint from the T-shirt set. Shirts may or may not intersect Cotton; the picture can be drawn both ways. Because a configuration exists where shirts have no overlap with cotton but still satisfies both statements, conclusion I is not necessary. However, in every valid drawing, the T-shirt and Shirt sets do not overlap, confirming conclusion II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A says only conclusion I follows, which is not justified by the statements. Option C says both follow, but we have seen that conclusion I is uncertain. Option D says neither follows, but conclusion II follows directly from statement 1. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that if all t-shirts are cotton and t-shirts are a kind of garment, then all garments (including shirts) are cotton. This is an invalid generalisation. Logical reasoning questions force you to distinguish between what is explicitly stated and what is merely possible. Final Answer: The only conclusion that definitely follows is conclusion II. Hence, the correct answer is “Only conclusion II follows.”

Question 18

Consider the given statements to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from them. Statements: Life means stresses and strains. Stresses and strains have an adverse effect on life. Conclusions: I. Li…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question uses philosophical sounding statements about life, stresses, and strains. The objective is not to agree or disagree emotionally but to judge which of the given conclusions is a strict logical consequence of the statements. Many candidates overextend the meaning and treat the issue as a moral or personal advice question, which is not required. Given Data / Assumptions: The following are to be treated as true. Statement 1: Life means stresses and strains. Statement 2: Stresses and strains have an adverse effect on life. Conclusion I: Life is not worth living. Conclusion II: One should avoid stresses and strains in life. Concept / Approach: The statements give descriptive information: they describe what life contains and the effect of stresses and strains on life. Conclusions I and II are evaluative and prescriptive. We must check whether the descriptive facts compel these strong value judgments. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Statement 1 suggests that life involves or includes stresses and strains. It does not claim that life consists only of negative aspects. Step 2: Statement 2 says that stresses and strains have an adverse effect on life. That means they are harmful or unpleasant, but the overall worth of life is not directly addressed. Step 3: Conclusion I, “Life is not worth living,” is a very strong statement. To justify it, we would need information that life contains nothing positive or that the adverse effects completely outweigh everything else. The given statements do not provide such information. Step 4: Conclusion II says, “One should avoid stresses and strains in life.” The statements tell us that stresses and strains have an adverse effect, but they do not specify whether avoiding them is possible or whether some amount is necessary for growth or other benefits. No direct recommendation is given in the statements. Verification / Alternative check: It is quite possible, within the given statements, that life has significant value despite stresses and strains. It is also possible that one cannot realistically avoid all stresses and strains. Both possibilities fit the statements without contradiction, so neither of the conclusions is logically forced. The information about adverse effects alone is not enough to prescribe complete avoidance or to declare life not worth living. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A assumes that the presence of adverse effects immediately makes life not worth living, which is an emotional leap. Option B takes the negative effect as a strict instruction to avoid stresses and strains, which the statements never state. Option C says both follow, combining two unjustified extremes. Common Pitfalls: Many students project their own opinions onto such questions. Logical reasoning, however, demands that conclusions must be directly supported by the explicit content of the statements, not by personal beliefs or typical moral lessons. Final Answer: Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II can be definitely drawn from the statements. Therefore, the correct option is “Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.”

Question 19

Consider the given statements to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from them. Statements: 1. All parrots are chicks. 2. All birds are chicks. Conclusions: I. Some birds are parrots. II. Some chi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with three sets: parrots, birds, and chicks. Two general statements relate these sets, and you must determine which of the given conclusions necessarily follow. The wording looks simple, but it checks careful understanding of what is guaranteed and what is not. Given Data / Assumptions: Treat the following as true. Statement 1: All parrots are chicks. Statement 2: All birds are chicks. Conclusion I: Some birds are parrots. Conclusion II: Some chicks are parrots. Concept / Approach: “All parrots are chicks” means the Parrot set lies entirely inside the Chick set. “All birds are chicks” means the Bird set also lies inside the Chick set. The relation between birds and parrots is not specified. To decide conclusions, we must avoid assuming overlap where none is guaranteed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement 1, every parrot is a chick. So Parrot is a subset of Chick. Step 2: From statement 2, every bird is a chick. So Bird is also a subset of Chick. Step 3: Conclusion I claims “Some birds are parrots.” For this to be compulsory, statements would need to guarantee that the Bird set and Parrot set overlap. However, it is possible that parrots form one group of chicks and other birds form another group of chicks, with no overlap between Birds and Parrots. Since both patterns are possible, conclusion I is not necessary. Step 4: Conclusion II states “Some chicks are parrots.” Since all parrots are chicks, if we assume that parrots exist, then there must be at least some chicks that are parrots. In typical exam logic, the existence of the subject is usually implied in such universal statements. Verification / Alternative check: Draw a large circle for Chick. Place a smaller circle inside it for Parrot. Place another circle inside Chick for Bird, which may or may not overlap with Parrot. In all such diagrams, there are some chicks that are parrots, but birds and parrots need not necessarily intersect. This confirms that conclusion II always holds, but conclusion I might fail in some valid configurations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A says both conclusions follow, but the overlap between birds and parrots is not guaranteed. Option B says none follows, which ignores the clear fact that some chicks must be parrots if parrots exist. Option C says only conclusion I follows, which is clearly weaker than conclusion II and not justified. Common Pitfalls: Many learners casually treat “birds” as a larger category that automatically includes parrots and then assume that some birds must be parrots. However, the logical statements provided do not define that relation explicitly; they only relate each set separately to chicks. You must work only with the given relations. Final Answer: Only conclusion II can be definitely drawn. Therefore, the correct answer is “Only conclusion II follows.”

Question 20

Consider the given statements to be true and decide which of the given conclusions or assumptions can definitely be drawn from them. Statements: 1. All elephants are men. 2. All men are socks. Conclusions: I. Some socks are elephants. II. All elepha…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is intentionally absurd in real life terms, but logically it is standard. You have two statements that place elephants inside men and men inside socks, and you must derive valid conclusions. The odd category names are meant to force you to think purely in terms of set relations. Given Data / Assumptions: Treat the following as logically true. Statement 1: All elephants are men. Statement 2: All men are socks. Conclusion I: Some socks are elephants. Conclusion II: All elephants are socks. Concept / Approach: “All elephants are men” makes the Elephant set a subset of the Men set. “All men are socks” makes the Men set a subset of the Socks set. When you chain two such inclusions, you can deduce a third inclusion: all elephants are socks. From that, if elephants exist, then there must be some socks that are elephants. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From statement 1, every elephant lies inside the Men set. Step 2: From statement 2, every man lies inside the Socks set. Step 3: Combining both, every elephant, being a man, must also lie inside the Socks set. Therefore, “All elephants are socks” is necessarily true, which is exactly conclusion II. Step 4: If all elephants are socks and we accept that elephants exist, then there is at least one elephant which is also a sock. This means there are some socks that are elephants, matching conclusion I. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three nested circles. Place Elephant inside Men and Men inside Socks. Any point in the Elephant circle is automatically in the Socks circle. This confirms conclusion II. Since the Elephant circle contains at least one point under standard exam assumptions, that point is in Socks, so “Some socks are elephants” is also true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A claims only conclusion I follows and ignores the clear general inclusion of elephants in socks. Option B says only conclusion II follows, but as soon as elephants exist, specific elephants are socks, so some socks must be elephants. Option D says neither follows, which is inconsistent with the direct chain of inclusions. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates are distracted by the strange categories (men and socks) and reject the logic. Others accept the chain but overlook that from “All A are C” we can deduce both a universal conclusion (all A are C) and a particular one (some C are A) when the existence of A is implied. Final Answer: Both conclusions I and II logically follow from the statements. Hence, the correct option is “Both conclusions I and II follow.”

Statement and Conclusion Questions