Join 60,000+ competitive exam aspirants
or with email
Your Cart
SubtotalтВ╣0
TotalтВ╣0
Examoogle тАв User тАв info@examoogle.com тАв EE-2024-8821
Chapter 1 of 12 тАв Page 1 of 248ЁЯФТ Protected PDF тАв Watermarked
Join 60,000+ competitive exam aspirants
Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which conclusion/s logically follow/s from the given statements. Statements: Some horses are rocks. Some rocks are leaves. No rock is a tree. Conclusions: (I) No horse is a tree. (II) At least some leaves are trees.
Only conclusion (II) follows.
Neither conclusion (I) nor (II) follows.
Only conclusion (I) follows.
Both conclusions (I) and (II) follow.
Neither conclusion (I) nor (II) follows.
Always check for possibilities: if a direct negative conclusion (No X is Y) cannot be proven by the overlap, it is false. If 'some' is not explicitly guaranteed, it is false.
Always check for possibilities: if a direct negative conclusion (No X is Y) cannot be proven by the overlap, it is false. If 'some' is not explicitly guaranteed, it is false.
Analyze Statement Relationships
Statements: (1) Some horses are rocks. (2) Some rocks are leaves. (3) No rock is a tree. We have a direct link between rocks and trees (Negative), but no direct information links horses to trees or leaves to trees.
Evaluating Conclusion I
Conclusion (I): No horse is a tree. While no rock is a tree, a horse (which overlaps with rock) could potentially overlap with a tree as long as that part of the horse is not a rock. Since it is not definitely true, it is false.
Evaluating Conclusion II
Conclusion (II): At least some leaves are trees. The statements say no rock is a tree, but they provide no information about the relationship between leaves and trees. Leaves could be trees, or they could not be. Since it is not definitely true, it is false.
A: Only II is incorrect because there is no evidence to support that leaves are trees. C: Only I is incorrect because the relationship between horse and tree is indeterminate, not definitely negative. D: Both are incorrect because neither conclusion can be logically deduced as true from the provided statements.
B is correct because neither conclusion follows logically as there is no direct or necessary relationship defined between horses and trees, or leaves and trees.
In Syllogism, if a conclusion is a 'possibility' rather than a certainty, check if the statement explicitly contradicts it; if no connection exists, the conclusion cannot be declared definitely true.
Get instant step-by-step AI explanations, full shift Previous Year Papers (SSC GD, RRB, SSC JE), and regional rank analysis on the official Examoogle App.
Free Download тАв 100K+ Aspirants