Syllogism reasoning questions are a type of logical reasoning question that involves concluding a set of statements. The questions typically include a set of statements followed by multiple conclusions, and the test-taker must identify which conclusions logically follow the statements, and test your logical reasoning skills.
Directions: In question, some statements are given, followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follow from the given statements. Indicate your answer.
Statements: All tubes are cubes. No cube is sky. No bird is sky.
Conclusions: I. No tube is bird. II. All birds being cubes is a possibility.
A. If only conclusion I follow B. If only conclusion II follow C. If neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows D. If both the conclusions follow E. If either conclusion I or conclusion II follows.
Correct Answer: B
Checking Conclusion I : No tube is bird.
As we can see that the middle term ‘Sky’ is not distributed even once in either S2 or S3, we can’t define
a relationship between the classes ‘tube’ and ‘bird’. C1, hence, doesn’t follow.
Checking Conclusion II : All birds being cubes is a possibility.
Since we can’t define a relationship between the classes ‘cube’ and ‘bird’, possibilities between them
do follow. C2, hence, follows here.
Statements: No dancers are actors. Some actors are artists. No artist is artisan. Conclusions: I. Some artists are not dancers. II. Some artisans are not actors.
A. If only conclusion I follow B. If only conclusion II follow C. If neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows D. If both the conclusions follow E. If either conclusion I or conclusion II follows.
Correct Answer: A
Checking Conclusion I : Some artists are not dancers.
Some artists are actors (Converse of S2) + No actor is dancer (Converse of S1) = Some artists are not
dancers. Clearly, C1 follows.
Checking Conclusion II : Some artisans are not actors.
Some actors are artists + No artist is artisan = Some actors are not artisans. Since converse of an O type
statement is not possible, C2 doesn’t follow.
Statement: All rivers are seas. All lakes are seas. Some seas are not oceans.
Conclusions: I. Some rivers are not lakes. II. Some oceans may not be seas.
A. If only conclusion I follow B. If only conclusion II follow C. If neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows D. If both the conclusions follow E. If either conclusion I or conclusion II follows.
Correct Answer: B
Checking Conclusion I : Some rivers are not lakes.
Here, neither S1 nor S2 is a negative statement, a negative conclusion between the classes of ‘rivers’
and ‘lakes’ is not possible. C1, hence, doesn’t follow.
Checking Conclusion II : Some oceans may not be seas.
In S3 it’s given that ‘Some seas are not oceans’. Here, we are not sure of the elements of the class
‘oceans’. Clearly, we can say that ‘Some oceans may not be seas’. C2, hence, follows.
Statements: Some oranges are apples. All lemons are apples. No apple is guava. Conclusions: I. Some oranges are lemons. II. All guavas being lemon is a possibility. III. No orange is a lemon.
A. Only C3 follows B. Either C1 or C3 follows C. Only C2 and C3 follow D. All follow E. None of these
Correct Answer: B
Checking C1 and C3:
‘Some oranges are lemons’ and ‘No orange is a lemons.
In S1 and S2, we can observe that the middle term ‘lemons’ is not
distributed even once, a definite conclusion can’t be derived between these
two. And C1 is an I type statement and C2 is an E type statement, they
both form a complementary pair (E + I combination).
Therefore, either C1 or C3 follows.
Checking C2:
All guavas being lemons is a possibility.
From S2 and S3,
All lemons are apples + No apple is guava = No lemon is a guava.
Clearly, there is no possibility that exists between ‘guava’ and ‘lemon’.
C2 hence doesn’t follow.
Evidently, either C1 or C3 follows.
Clearly, option B is the correct answer.
Statements: A few mechanics are not plumbers. All plumbers are qualified. No qualified is skilled. Conclusions: I. No skilled is a plumber. II. No mechanic is skilled. III. Some plumbers are not mechanics.
A. Only C1 follows B. Either C1 or C2 follows C. Only C2 and C3 follow D. All follow E. None of these
Correct Answer: A
Checking C1:
No skilled is a plumber.
From S1 and S2,
All plumbers are qualified (A) + No qualified is skilled (E) = No plumber is killed or No skilled is a plumber.
C1 hence follows
Checking C2:
No mechanic is skilled.
Clearly, S1 in which the class ‘mechanics’ exists is an O type statement, we can’t derive a definite relationship of it with any other statement.
Clearly, C2 doesn’t follow.
Checking C3:
Some plumbers are not mechanics.
From S1,
A few mechanics are not plumbers.
But as conversion of an O type statement is not valid, C3 doesn’t follow either.
Evidently, only C1 follows.
Option A is hence the correct answer.
Statements: No cycle is tyre. Not a single tyre is tube. Every tube is puncture. Conclusions: I. Some punctures which are tubes are cycles as well. II. No cycle is a tube. III. Some punctures are not tyres.
A. Only C3 follows B. Either C1 or C2 follows C. Only C2 and C3 follow D. All follow E. None of these
Correct Answer: A
Checking C1:
Some punctures which are tubes are cycles as well.
If we observe the given statements, we can find that in Statement 1 and 2, the middle term ‘tyre’ is distributed twice and therefore even after conversing either of the sentence we won’t be able to find a definite conclusion out of these two. Therefore, we can’t derive a definite relationship between ‘tube’ and ‘cycle’.
C1 hence doesn’t follow.
Checking C2:
No cycle is a tube.
Following the logic explained above, we can clearly say that C2 doesn’t follow either.
Checking C3:
Some punctures are not tyres.
From S2 and S3, Not a single tyre is tube (E) + Every tube is puncture (A) = Some unctures are not tyres.
Clearly, C3 follows.
Among all, only C3 follows. Option A is hence the correct answer.
Statements: No panther is jaguar. Not a single jaguar is puma. Every puma is cheetah.
Conclusions: I. Some cheetah which are puma are panther as well. II. No panther is a puma. III. Some cheetah are not jaguar.
A. Only C3 follows B. Either C1 or C2 follows C. Only C2 and C3 follow D. All follow E. None of these
Correct Answer: A
Checking C1:
Some cheetah which are puma are panther as well.
If we observe the given statements, we can find that in Statement 1 and 2, the middle term ‘jaguar’ is distributed twice and therefore even after conversing either of the sentence we won’t be able to find a definite conclusion out of these two. Therefore, we can’t derive a definite relationship between ‘puma’ and ‘panther’.
C1 hence doesn’t follow.
Checking C2:
No panther is a puma.
Following the logic explained above, we can clearly say that C2 doesn’t follow either.
Checking C3:
Some cheetah are not jaguar.
From S2 and S3, Not a single jaguar is puma (E) + Every puma is cheetah (A) = Some cheetah are not jaguar.
Clearly, C3 follows.
Among all, only C3 follows. Option A is hence the correct answer.
Statements: No wire is pin. Some pins are mugs.
Conclusions: I. All mugs being wires is a possibility. II. Some mugs are not wires.
A. Only I follows B. Only II follows C. If either I or II follows D. If neither I nor II follows E. If both I and II follow
Correct Answer: B
In both the conclusions we need to derive relationships between the classes ‘wire’ and ‘mugs’ which are present in Statement 1 and 2 respectively.
Here, the middle term ‘pins’ is distributed once, therefore, applying the deduction method we get, “Some mugs are not wires.” which is given as conclusion II.
But, when some mugs are already not wires, the conclusion “All mugs being wires is a possibility’ can’t be true. Hence, conclusion I doesn’t follow.
Option B is hence the correct answer
Statements: Men are sinners. Saints are men.
Conclusions: I. Saints are sinners. II. Sinners are saints.
A. If only conclusion I follows. B. If only conclusion II follows. C. If either I or II follows. D. If neither I nor II follows. E. If both I and II follow
Correct Answer: A
Checking C1 : Saints are sinners.
Using S2 and S1, we get
Saints are men (A) + Men are sinners (A) ⇒ Saints are sinners. Hence, C1 follows.
Checking C2 : Sinners are saints.
Converse of the derived conclusion above ⇒ Some sinners are saints. However, the given conclusion is of A type. Therefore, C2 doesn’t follow.
Hence, option A is correct.
Statements: Only first divisioners are admitted. Ram is a first divisioner.
Conclusions: I. Ram is admitted. II. Only Ram is admitted.
A. If only conclusion I follows. B. If only conclusion II follows. C. If either I or II follows. D. If neither I nor II follows. E. If both I and II follow
Correct Answer: D
Checking C1 : Ram is admitted.
Using S1 (which can be written as ‘All admitted are first divisoners’) and S2, we get Ram is a first divisioner (A) + All admitted are first divisoners (A) ⇒ No definite conclusion. Clearly, C1 doesn’t follow.
Checking C2 : ‘Only Ram is admitted’ or ‘All admitted are Ram’.
Following the explanation given for C1, we can say that C2 doesn’t follow either.
Hence, option D is correct.
