Reasoning Aptitude > Logical Reasoning
LOGICAL DEDUCTION MCQs
Total Questions : 508
| Page 44 of 51 pages
Answer: Option A. -> None follows
All tigers are lions. No cow is lion.
Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and shouldn't contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No tiger is cow'.
Some camels are cows. No cow is lion.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not lions'. Some camels are cows. No tiger is cow.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not tigers'.
All tigers are lions. No cow is lion.
Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and shouldn't contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No tiger is cow'.
Some camels are cows. No cow is lion.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not lions'. Some camels are cows. No tiger is cow.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not tigers'.
Answer: Option D. -> Only III follows
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
Some rats are cats. Some cats are dogs.
Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.
Some cats are dogs. No dog is cow.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some cats are not cows'.
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
Some rats are cats. Some cats are dogs.
Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.
Some cats are dogs. No dog is cow.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some cats are not cows'.
Answer: Option C. -> Only III follows
All snakes are trees. Some trees are roads.
Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.
Some trees are roads. All roads are mountains.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trees are mountains'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All snakes are trees. Some trees are mountains.
Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.
All snakes are trees. Some trees are roads.
Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.
Some trees are roads. All roads are mountains.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trees are mountains'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All snakes are trees. Some trees are mountains.
Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.
Answer: Option C. -> Only either I or II, and III follow
All tigers are jungles. No jungle is bird.
Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term.
So, it follows that 'No tiger is bird'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
No jungle is bird. Some birds are rains.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some jungles are not rains'.
Since I and II also involve the same terms and form a complementary pair, so either I or II follows.
All tigers are jungles. No jungle is bird.
Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term.
So, it follows that 'No tiger is bird'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
No jungle is bird. Some birds are rains.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some jungles are not rains'.
Since I and II also involve the same terms and form a complementary pair, so either I or II follows.
Answer: Option A. -> None follows
All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees.Since the middle term 'toys' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees.
Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.
All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees.Since the middle term 'toys' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees.
Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.
Answer: Option D. -> All follow
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
Some bricks are trees. All trees are pens.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some bricks are pens'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All trees are pens. All pens are boats.
Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All trees are boats'.
Some bricks are trees. All trees are boats.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some bricks are boats'. Thus, IV follows. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it also holds.
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
Some bricks are trees. All trees are pens.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some bricks are pens'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All trees are pens. All pens are boats.
Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All trees are boats'.
Some bricks are trees. All trees are boats.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some bricks are boats'. Thus, IV follows. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it also holds.
Answer: Option E. -> All follow
IV is the converse of the second premise and so it holds.
All doors are buses. All buses are leaves.
Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All doors are leaves'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All buses are leaves. No leaf is a flower.
Since both the 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 bus is flower'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All doors are buses. No bus is flower.
As discussed above, it follows that 'No door is flower'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it also holds.
IV is the converse of the second premise and so it holds.
All doors are buses. All buses are leaves.
Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All doors are leaves'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All buses are leaves. No leaf is a flower.
Since both the 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 bus is flower'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
All doors are buses. No bus is flower.
As discussed above, it follows that 'No door is flower'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it also holds.
Answer: Option C. -> Only either II or IV, and III follow
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers.
Since the middle term 'rivers' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
All wells are springs. Some springs are rivers.
Since the middle term 'springs' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, II and IV involve the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either II or IV follows.
III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.
All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers.
Since the middle term 'rivers' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
All wells are springs. Some springs are rivers.
Since the middle term 'springs' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, II and IV involve the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either II or IV follows.
Answer: Option D. -> Only IV follows
Some trains are roads. No road is jungle.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trains are not jungles'.
No road is jungle. All flowers are jungles.
Since both the 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 flower is road'. IV is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
Some trains are roads, No flower is road.
As discussed above, it follows that 'Some trains are not flowers'.
Some trains are roads. No road is jungle.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trains are not jungles'.
No road is jungle. All flowers are jungles.
Since both the 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 flower is road'. IV is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
Some trains are roads, No flower is road.
As discussed above, it follows that 'Some trains are not flowers'.
Answer: Option A. -> None follows
All cups are glasses. Some glasses are bowls.
Since the middle term 'glasses' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
Some glasses are bowls. No bowl is a plate.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some glasses are not plates'.
All cups are glasses. Some glasses are bowls.
Since the middle term 'glasses' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.
Some glasses are bowls. No bowl is a plate.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some glasses are not plates'.
Latest Videos
Latest Test Papers
Login With Google
Old way of Login
Login With Email