Logical Reasoning - Logical Deduction - Discussion

Here, one premise is negative and one premise is particular. so, according to rule i.e.,
---------> No conclusion follows <----------.

(a) if both the premises are particular
Example.
Statements :
1. Some books are pens.
2. Some pens are erasers.
Conclusions:
1. All books are erasers.
2. Some erasers are books.
Since both the premises are particular, so no definite conclusion follows.
(b) if both the premises are negative.

Example.
Statements :
1. No flower is mango.
2. No mango is cherry.
Conclusions :
1. No flower is cherry.
2. Some cherries are mangoes. Since both the premises are negative, neither conclusion follows.

(c) if the major premise is particular and the minor premise is negative.
Example.
Statements:
1. Some dogs are bulls.
2. No tigers are dogs.
Conclusions:
1. No dogs are tigers.
2. Some bulls are tigers.

Here, the first premise containing the middle term 'dogs' as the subject is the major premise and the second premise containing the middle term 'dogs' as the predicate is the minor premise. Since the major premise is particular and the minor premise is negative, so no conclusion follows.

Male athletes can play - The first statement states 'No women teacher can play'; we have no idea who can play, so we cannot assume statement 1 to be true.

Some athletes can play - The first or the second statement do not tell us who can play. The second statement states that 'Some women teachers are athletes' which is adding a fact to the first statement given, but still does not tell us who can play.

Here women teacher is the middle term and is subject in both the premises. So how did I differentiate which is major premise and which is the minor premise to apply rule 4 (iii)?

Also if I can't apply the rule 4 (iii) here, then by rule 7 the conclusion 2 must follow because we have one particular premise. So conclusion 2 is a possibility.

Here we need to follow the Rules:

No women teacher can play: Means: Answer should be in negative.

Male athletes can play: Means: This will not follow because here we are not talking about Male.

Some athletes can play: Means: This will also not follow because I already told you answer should be in negative.

This is a premise, right?

So why can't I come to a conclusion that men athletes can play? If I should consider the options alone then whats the point of calling it a premise? What's the difference between this and syllogism?

From the statement "No women teacher can play. Some women teachers are athletes."

You can not conclude either "I. Male athletes can play." or "II. Some athletes can play."

So the answer is "Neither I nor II follows".

It means that no women teachers can play. That is rather prejudiced. However, the text states that women teachers can also be athletes, so it is unfair and negative.

Nothing is given about the male athletes so we can't tell 1 is correct.

We don't no weather all athletes are women Or some are men so we can't say 2 is correct.

Where it is mention that it is only for women?

It may be a chance for the male can play. So, Explain it.

Sir if a conclusion is given same as statement will it follow or not please clear?