Verbal Reasoning - Syllogism - Discussion

All of you please don't think. Follow the rules.

1. Check the statements 1&2 are o and a type which does not have conclusions so con 1 is wrong.

2. Now con 2 is of single statement type and of A type which as a rule is converted into I type that is some cats are dogs the is why only con-2 is true and 1 does not follow.

Yes rajeswari is exactly correct, because there is a chance to some doors is cat its not a confirmative.

All of you are wrong.

Middle term is dog and middle term should not be in the conclusion.

If middle term is distributed twice then conclusion should be particular.

So conclusion is:

Some doors are cats (or) Some cats are doors.

But this conclusion is not available in the list.

Answer is 3rd option because it is converse of 2nd statement.

According rule set if one premise is negative then conclusion must be negative,and also common term should be eliminated so option (1) is correct.

Hey we have to make a definite diagram and a probable diagram and if in both the diagrams it follows then only we can approve for it ?

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 guys look at it this way.

No door is dog. All the dogs are cats.
No door is cat.
No cat is door.

All dogs are cats, that doesn't mean that all cats are dogs, that is, some cats may not be dogs. DOGS is a subset of CATS.

Now no door is dog but some doors may be cats because as we saw all cats are not dogs.

The second conclusion also, similarly, is not feasible.

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'.

Conclusion four may be also correct if all the dogs are cat then from venn diagram it also happens that dogs completely overlap on dogs and in that case the all the cats are dogs.

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.