Logical Deduction :: Logic :: Type 1 (Two Premise Arguments)

• Logic - Type 1 (Two Premise Arguments)
• Logic - Type 2 (Three Premise Arguments)

The question given below has a set of three or four statements. Each set of a statement is further divided into three segments. Choose the alternative where the third segment in the statement can be logically deduced using both the preceding two, but not just from one of them.

A : All beautiful things are sad. She is beautiful. She is sad.

B : All nice things are flat. TVs are flat. TVs are nice things.

C . Potatoes are stems. All stems are fruits. Potatoes are fruits.

Answer:

Explanation:

In the question two statements P and Q are given. Look in to their logical acceptability and mark your answer.

P : Some A's and some B's are C's. Some C's are both A's and B's. Therefore some A's are B's.

Q : All A's are B's. Some C's are A's, Therefore, some C's are B's.

Answer:

Explanation:

The question consists of statements P and Q. They may look factually absurd. You have to ignore this absurdity and concentrate only upon the logic involved therein.

P : Jackals lives in forests. Cities are in forests. Therefore jackals live in cities.

Q : Some tables are grass. All stools are grass. Therefore all tables are stools.

Answer:

Explanation:

In the question, two statements are given followed by three or four conclusions numbered. I, II, III and IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from the commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements : All shares are debentures. No debenture is an equity

Conclusions: I. No equity is a share. II. Some debentures are shares. III. No share is an equity

Answer:

Explanation:

 Since both premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No share is equity. Thus, III follows. I is the converse of this conclusion and so' it also holds. II is the converse of the first premise and so it also holds.

In the question, two statements are given followed by three or four conclusions numbered. I, II, III and IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from the commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

 Statements:  Some tables are TVs. Some TVs are radios

Conclusions: I. Some tables are radios. II. Some radios are tables III All radios are TVs. IV All TVs are tables

Answer:

Explanation:

since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows

• Logic - Type 1 (Two Premise Arguments)
• Logic - Type 2 (Three Premise Arguments)