Verbal Reasoning - Syllogism - Discussion

For NO statement we have to see two diagrams. Basic and possibility.

For example, in the above explanation, two venn diagrams are given. One is basic and the other is possibility.

For the first conclusion, there is no link between the door and cat. Hence basic diagram satisfies according to a conclusion.

But in the possibility diagram there is a link between the door and the cat, hence according to possibility, the first conclusion is not satisfies.

For the NO statement, both basic and possibility must satisfy, hence conclusion 1 is wrong.

Similarly, the second conclusion is also false.

Therefore the answer is only 3 follows.

Hope this will help you:

a-> universal affirmative statement. eg. all men r mortal.
e-> universal negative statement. eg. no men r animal.
i-> particular affirmative statement. eg. some men r wise.
o-> particular negative statement. eg. some men r not animal.
Now how to use in statements. easy way 4 you to remember the words(select only vowels).

Paragraph-> a+a=a.
Agree-> a+e=e.
Editor-> e+i=o.
Reason-> e+a=o.
Britain-> i+a=i.
Video-> i+e=o.

So in above e.g. its. e+a=o. but there is not sch a option and option 3 is correct. therefore only option 3. Hope you got it. If there is error let me know.

I fully agree with @Rahul.

The 1st statement is of 'E' type, means NO type.
The 2nd statement is of 'A' type means ALL type.

Now E+A always results in O*, which means in the conclusion 2nd statement's Predicate will become the conclusion's Subject and the 1st statement's Subject will become conclusion's Predicate.

And this type of conclusion always results in 'Some Not'.

Therefore the right conclusion would be 'Some cats are not dogs'.

'Some cats are not dogs' is not there in any of the conclusion.

But conclusion 3 is the converse of the second premise. So 3 is the right answer.

Option 1 . Not correct because in 2nd statement cats is undistributed according to rule as in universal negative (E) statement both subject and predicate is distributed so this is wrong more over E+A =O* (reverse).

Option 2. Again E+A=O* (reverse) fallacy or mistake as you understand and distribution fallacy is also here.

Option 3 is correct According to conversion rule A changes only in I here subject and predicate interchange their position.

Option 4. The answer can never be positive if any statement is negative so this is also wrong.

By tick and cross method.

1. Universal negative so both are distributed.

2. Universal positive so dogs distributed and cats not distributed.

Then removing the common term we get option 1 as correct.

Further 3 conclusion as a statement is true.

But no cat is door i.e. option 2 is not correct since the rule suggest cat is not distributed in the premises hence it can't be distributed in the conclusion.

So final answer is option B.

<<< peace >>>.

The Answer is 1,2,3 by using tick and cross method as well.
U get the derived stmt.

No Door is Cat.

Conclusions from this stmt.

->No Cat is Door.
->Some cats are not doors.
-> some doors are not cats.

All dogs are cats.

Conclusions.
Some dogs are cats.
Some cats are dogs.

PS The Middle term if distributed in exams like CAT/CMAT etc.
The distributed term can be used to make the final conclusion as per the options available.

Well there is a lot of discussion over this question so I want to put my opinion.

First of all No+All = Some.

Now Let's c d conclusions:

Conclusion I is correct in general i.e No door is cat.

Conclusion II is also correct as it is converse of Conclusion I.

Conclusion III is obvious because No+All = Some.

And lastly conclusion IV which is just the converse of Conclusion III. So I think there is no proper option to the question.

The 1st statement is of 'E' type, means NO type.

The 2nd statement is of 'A' type means ALL type.

Now E+A always results in O*, which means in the conclusion 2nd statement's Predicate will become the conclusion's Subject and the 1st statement's Subject will become conclusion's Predicate.

And this type of conclusion always results in 'Some Not'.

Therefore the right conclusion would be 'Some cats are not dogs'.

By Raval's notation statements are DD / DgDg and DgDg - C now conclusions can be deduced at glance.

First conclusion DD / CC is straightaway ruled out because we don't have any CC in statement.

Second conclusion CC / DD is also ruled out.

Third conclusion C - Dg follows from statement DgDg - C on reverse reading.

Fourth conclusion CC - Dg is ruled out straightaway because of no CC in statement notations.

The answer is all 1, 2, 3 and 4 as:.

Conclusion 1 is correct as if no dogs are doors and all dogs are cats no doors are cats.
Conclusion 2 is correct as it is a repeat of the first conclusion.
Conclusion 3 is correct as if all dogs are cats some cats are also dogs.
Conclusion 4 is correct as if all dogs are cats all cats are dogs.

Therefore all 1, 2, 3 and 4 are correct.