More Questions from Syllogism

Syllogism — Nested inclusions and an external existential Statements: • All chairs are tables. • All tables are cushions. • Some cushions are trolleys. • All trolleys are lamps. Conclusions: I) Some lamps are tables. II) Some trolleys are chairs. III) Some cushions are lamps. IV) All chairs are cushions. Choose the correct set.

Verbal Reasoning Syllogism Difficulty: Medium
Choose an option
  • A
    Only I follows
  • B
    Only III and IV follow
  • C
    Only either II or II follows
  • D
    All follows
  • E
    None of these

Answer

Correct Answer: Only III and IV follow

Explanation

Introduction / Context:Nesting inclusions allow some conclusions to be read off immediately, while an existential about another branch creates a separate chain. The trick is to avoid assuming intersections that are not enforced.

Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Chairs ⊆ Tables.
  • Tables ⊆ Cushions.
  • ∃t: t ∈ Cushions ∩ Trolleys.
  • Trolleys ⊆ Lamps.

Concept / Approach:From Chairs ⊆ Tables ⊆ Cushions, it follows that All chairs are cushions (IV). The existential witness t in Cushions ∩ Trolleys, combined with Trolleys ⊆ Lamps, implies that Some cushions are lamps (III). However, to claim “Some lamps are tables” or “Some trolleys are chairs” would require the trolley witness to lie inside Tables/Chairs, which is not guaranteed.

Step-by-Step Solution:

IV: Chain inclusions directly: Chairs ⊆ Tables ⊆ Cushions ⇒ Chairs ⊆ Cushions.III: From t ∈ Cushions ∩ Trolleys and Trolleys ⊆ Lamps, t ∈ Lamps; hence Cushions ∩ Lamps ≠ ∅.I: For “Some lamps are tables,” we would need a lamp that is also a table; nothing links the trolley-lamp witness back to Tables.II: For “Some trolleys are chairs,” we would need Trolleys ∩ Chairs ≠ ∅; again, not enforced.

Verification / Alternative check:Diagram two branches: (Chairs → Tables → Cushions) and (Cushions ← Trolleys → Lamps). The trolley branch meets Cushions but need not pass through Tables/Chairs.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:They assume overlaps between Trolleys and Tables/Chairs that the premises do not create.

Common Pitfalls:Overextending an existential witness into unrelated subsets merely because they share a common superset.

Final Answer:Only III and IV follow.

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