MBA: Syllogism Flashcards

Statements: Some Poets are poems. No poem is a song. Conclusions: I. Some Poems are not songs. II. Some songs are poems.

Answer: Only I conclusion follows

The statement 'No poem is a song' directly implies that poems and songs are entirely distinct categories. Therefore, if no poem is a song, it logically follows that 'Some Poems are not songs' must be true, as it's a weaker form of 'All poems are not songs.' Conclusion II, 'Some songs are poems,' directly contradicts the given statement and is therefore false.

Statements: Some pens are pencils. No pencil is a sharpener. Conclusions: I. Some pens being sharpeners is a possibility. II. Some sharpeners are pencils.

Answer: If only (I) conclusion follows

The statement 'No pencil is a sharpener' establishes that pencils and sharpeners are mutually exclusive. However, 'Some pens are pencils' implies there are pens that are *not* pencils. These non-pencil pens have no defined relationship with sharpeners, making it possible for 'Some pens being sharpeners' (Conclusion I) to be true. Conclusion II, 'Some sharpeners are pencils,' directly contradicts the given statement 'No pencil is a sharpener,' making it false.

Statement: Some pearls are jewels. Some jewels are ornaments. Conclusions: I. Some jewels are pearls. II. Some ornaments are jewels

Answer: Both I and II follows

Both conclusions are direct conversions of the given statements. If 'Some pearls are jewels,' it logically follows that 'Some jewels are pearls,' as the relationship is reciprocal. Similarly, if 'Some jewels are ornaments,' it inherently means that 'Some ornaments are jewels.' Therefore, both conclusions I and II logically follow from the respective statements.

Statement: All the pencils are pens. All the pens are Ink. Conclusion: I. All the pencils are ink. II. Some inks are pencils

Answer: Both I and II follows

The statements establish a hierarchical relationship: all pencils are contained within the category of pens, and all pens are contained within the category of ink. This means that all pencils are necessarily also ink, making conclusion I correct. Furthermore, if all pencils are ink, then it logically follows that some portion of ink must be pencils, validating conclusion II.

Statement: Some kings are queens. All the queens are beautiful. Conclusion: I. All the kings are beautiful II. All the queens are kings.

Answer: Neither I or II follows

From 'Some kings are queens' and 'All queens are beautiful,' we can only deduce that *some* kings (specifically, those who are queens) are beautiful. We cannot conclude that *all* kings are beautiful, as there might be kings who are not queens and whose beauty status is unknown. Similarly, 'Some kings are queens' does not imply that *all* queens are kings; there could be queens who are not kings. Therefore, neither conclusion I nor II logically follows.

Statement: Some hens are cows. All the cows are horses Conclusion: I. Some horses are hens II. Some hens are horses

Answer: Both I and II follows

The statements indicate that a subset of hens are cows, and all cows are horses. This creates a transitive relationship where the hens that are also cows must necessarily be horses. Therefore, it logically follows that 'Some hens are horses' (Conclusion II). The conclusion 'Some horses are hens' (Conclusion I) is simply a rephrasing of the same fact, confirming that both conclusions are valid.

Statement: Some dogs are bats. Some bats are cats. Conclusion: I. Some dogs are cats II. Some cats are dogs

Answer: Neither I or II follows

The statements 'Some dogs are bats' and 'Some bats are cats' only establish partial overlaps between consecutive categories. While dogs share a common category with bats, and bats share a common category with cats, there is no definitive link or overlap established between dogs and cats. It is possible that the 'some bats' that are dogs are entirely different from the 'some bats' that are cats. Therefore, neither conclusion I nor II necessarily follows.

Statements: Some mangoes are yellow. Some tixo are magoes. Conclusions: I. some mangoes are green II. Tixo is a yellow

Answer: Neither (I) nor (II) follows

The statements provide information about mangoes being yellow and tixo being mangoes, but they do not establish any connection between mangoes and the color green. Thus, conclusion I cannot be drawn. For conclusion II, while some tixo are mangoes and some mangoes are yellow, there is no direct or guaranteed overlap between tixo and yellow. The specific mangoes that are tixo might not be the same specific mangoes that are yellow. Therefore, neither conclusion logically follows.

Statements: No mat is fan. Some fans are cars. All cars are shirts. Conclusions: I. All mats are cars II. All shirts are cars III. some shirts are fans IV. No shirt is a mat

Answer: Only III follow

From 'Some fans are cars' and 'All cars are shirts,' it logically follows that the fans that are cars must also be shirts. Therefore, 'Some shirts are fans' (Conclusion III) is a valid deduction. Conclusions I ('All mats are cars') and II ('All shirts are cars') are incorrect as they contradict the given statements or make unwarranted generalizations. Conclusion IV ('No shirt is a mat') cannot be definitively proven true or false from the given information.

Statement: All the harmoniums are instruments, All instruments are flutes. Conclusion: I. All the flutes are instruments II. All the harmoniums are flutes

Answer: Only II conclusion follows

The statements establish a clear hierarchy: all harmoniums are instruments, and all instruments are flutes. This means that all harmoniums are necessarily also flutes, making conclusion II correct. However, the statement 'All instruments are flutes' does not imply that 'All flutes are instruments'; there could be flutes that are not instruments. Therefore, conclusion I does not follow.

Statements: Some pots are keys. Some keys are locks. All keys are rings Conclusions: I. Some pots are locks II. some pots are not locks III. Some pots are rings IV. Some pots are not rings.

Answer: Only either I or II & III follow

From 'Some pots are keys' and 'All keys are rings,' it logically follows that the pots which are keys must also be rings. Thus, conclusion III, 'Some pots are rings,' is definitely true. Regarding conclusions I ('Some pots are locks') and II ('Some pots are not locks'), the statements do not provide enough information to definitively conclude either individually. However, it is a logical certainty that *either* some pots are locks *or* some pots are not locks. Therefore, the combination 'Only either I or II & III follow' is correct.

Statement: All the poets are goats. Some goats are trees Conclusion: I. Some poets are trees II. Some trees are goats

Answer: Only II follows

The statement 'Some goats are trees' directly implies its converse, 'Some trees are goats,' making conclusion II logically follow. However, for conclusion I, 'Some poets are trees,' while all poets are goats and some goats are trees, there is no guaranteed overlap between the specific goats that are poets and the specific goats that are trees. It is possible that the goats that are poets are entirely separate from the goats that are trees. Therefore, conclusion I does not necessarily follow.

Statement: Some cows are crows. Some crows are elephants Conclusion: I. Some cows are elephants II. All crows are elephant

Answer: Neither I or II follows

The statements 'Some cows are crows' and 'Some crows are elephants' establish partial overlaps. Conclusion I, 'Some cows are elephants,' cannot be definitively concluded because the specific 'crows' that are 'cows' might not be the same specific 'crows' that are 'elephants'. Conclusion II, 'All crows are elephant,' is incorrect because the statement only asserts that *some* crows are elephants, not all of them. Therefore, neither conclusion logically follows from the given statements.

Statements: All tourists are politicians. Some tourists are leaders. Some politicians are ministers. Conclusions: I. Some leaders are ministers II. All leaders are politicians III. Some ministers are not politicians IV. Some politicians are not tourists

Answer: None follows

Let's analyze each conclusion. Conclusion I ('Some leaders are ministers') cannot be inferred as the overlap between politicians and leaders, and politicians and ministers, doesn't guarantee an overlap between leaders and ministers. Conclusion II ('All leaders are politicians') is false because while some leaders are tourists and all tourists are politicians, there could be leaders who are not tourists and thus not necessarily politicians. Conclusion III ('Some ministers are not politicians') is not necessarily true, as all ministers could potentially be politicians. Conclusion IV ('Some politicians are not tourists') is also not necessarily true, as the set of politicians could be identical to the set of tourists. Since none of these conclusions are definitively true, the correct answer is 'None follows'.

Statements: Some cats are mouse. Some cows are cat Conclusions: I. Some cows are mouse Ii. All cows being mouse is a possibility

Answer: If only (II) conclusion follows

The statements 'Some cats are mouse' and 'Some cows are cat' establish partial overlaps. Conclusion I, 'Some cows are mouse,' does not necessarily follow because the specific 'cats' that are 'cows' might not be the same specific 'cats' that are 'mouse'. However, Conclusion II, 'All cows being mouse is a possibility,' is true. It is possible to draw a Venn diagram where all cows are a subset of mice, and this arrangement remains consistent with both original statements. Thus, only the possibility follows.

Statements: All fans are lamps. Some lamps are birds. Conclusions: I. Some birds are fan II. All fan being birds is a possibility

Answer: If only (II) conclusion follows

The statements 'All fans are lamps' and 'Some lamps are birds' indicate that fans are a subset of lamps, and lamps have some overlap with birds. Conclusion I, 'Some birds are fan,' does not necessarily follow because the 'lamps' that are 'birds' might not be the same 'lamps' that are 'fans'. However, Conclusion II, 'All fan being birds is a possibility,' is true. It is possible to construct a scenario where all fans are also birds, and this scenario remains consistent with both original statements. Therefore, only the possibility follows.