Verbal Reasoning - Syllogism - Discussion
Discussion Forum : Syllogism - Syllogism 2 (Q.No. 1)
Directions to Solve
In each of the following questions two statements are given. Which are followed by four conclusions (1), (2), (3) and (4). Choose the conclusions which logically follow from the given statements.
1.
Statements: No door is dog. All the dogs are cats.
Conclusions:
- No door is cat.
- No cat is door.
- Some cats are dogs.
- All the cats are dogs.
Answer: Option
Explanation:
Discussion:
121 comments Page 5 of 13.
Manoj kumar said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
Rashmi said:
1 decade ago
@manoj is right.
Varun said:
1 decade ago
Yes answer is 3
Eshwar said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
Phalgun royal said:
1 decade ago
Yes rajeswari is exactly correct, because there is a chance to some doors is cat its not a confirmative.
Yamini said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
Rajesh said:
1 decade ago
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.
Deepali said:
1 decade ago
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 ?
Harshad said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
Wasif said:
1 decade ago
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.
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.
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers