Logical Reasoning - Logical Deduction - Discussion
Discussion Forum : Logical Deduction - Section 1 (Q.No. 1)
Directions to Solve
In each question below are given two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given two statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read the conclusion and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.
Give answer:
- (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 and
- (E) If both I and II follow.
1.
Statements: No women teacher can play. Some women teachers are athletes.
Conclusions:
- Male athletes can play.
- Some athletes can play.
Answer: Option
Explanation:
Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. So, neither conclusion follows.
Discussion:
23 comments Page 2 of 3.
Ardhe said:
9 years ago
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".
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".
Praveen said:
9 years ago
I could not understand. Please, anyone explain in a simple way.
Vinoth kumar said:
9 years ago
Please tell me the tricks to solve the logical detection.
Vemula praveen said:
9 years ago
What is the meaning of athletes?
Swasthika said:
9 years ago
I couldn't understand this explanation. Explain it in a simple way.
ARYAN said:
8 years ago
Where it is mention that it is only for women?
It may be a chance for the male can play. So, Explain it.
It may be a chance for the male can play. So, Explain it.
(2)
Crizy said:
8 years ago
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.
(1)
Harendra AK said:
8 years ago
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.
---------> 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.
Sriram said:
8 years ago
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?
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?
(2)
Payal Biswas said:
7 years ago
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.
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.
(3)
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers