Explanation:
All athletes are diligent workers, as you may infer from the first premise, but you have no knowledge of non-athletes.
You cannot draw any conclusions about Amy, who is not an athlete, based on the second sentence.
The conclusion is uncertain.
Explanation:
The first assumption states that the first level is where the majority of technicians work. This indicates that at least one technician is not assigned to the first floor. Rose might thus have a job on the third level or not.
Consequently, the conclusion cannot be decided based on the available data
Explanation:
Since a person must be alive to get superannuation, it is implicitly assumed that the person must survive for the required amount of time in order to be qualified to receive or withdraw superannuation benefits. Additionally, it is assumed that the tenure will be long enough to allow the funds to grow over time in the statements. As a result, assumptions I and II are both implicit. Hence the response.
Explanation:
If the salad doesn't include Kiwi, it also can't have Papaya because you can only choose Papaya if you also choose Kiwi (~K → ~P).
Since just one of the two fruits—Papaya or Honeydew—can be chosen (P H), Honeydew must be used in the salad.
Note: If derivatives were correctly generated, then this problem can be rapidly and simply solved (derivative: ~K → H).
Explanation:
True is the correct response.
Earrings and body piercings are permitted at "Sacred Jar" high school for pupils who are either 17 years of age or older or for those who have a parent's written consent.
Simplify this complex statement:
If you are 17 years old or older, or if your parents have given you permission, you may wear earrings and have body piercings.
The word "OR" denotes that only one of the requirements—attending school while sporting piercings and earrings—must be met.
The second claim states that Mary is 17 years old but not with parental consent.
Mary thus satisfies one of the requirements (she is 17 years old). She is able to go to school while sporting earrings and body piercings.
Solving tip: When faced with a lengthy, complex statement, attempt to distill it down to its essentials and rephrase it in a clearer, more concise manner.
Explanation:
The right response is: Uncertain.
The first claim indicates that Bobby is taller than Robert, hence Bobby > Robbert.
The second claim indicates that Job is shorter than Bobby, i.e. Job Bobby.
The following alternative form of this sentence is also acceptable: Bobby is taller than Job, or Bobby > Job.
You can therefore conclude that Bob is taller than Robert, Job, and (Bobby is the tallest among the three). You don't have enough information, though, to say whether Robbert or Job is shorter.
Therefore, "Uncertain" is the appropriate response.
Explanation:
The facts contradict the conclusion.
James won't be able to leave for work on time if Peter is late for the meeting since he will have to stay late at work. James will only have dinner prepared by Betty if he arrives home from work on time. Therefore, Peter could not have arrived late to the meeting if Betty cooked dinner for James.
