Logical Deduction — Part 1 MCQs with Explanations

Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. So, neither conclusion follows.

Since the middle term 'cakes' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, I and II involve only the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. So, either I or II follows.

Clearly, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No mango is cheap'. Since all mangoes are golden in colour, we may substitute 'mangoes' with 'golden-coloured mangoes'. Thus, II follows.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular. So, neither I nor II follows.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.

The first premise is A type and distributes the subject. So, the middle term 'waters' which forms its predicate, is not distributed. The second premise is I type and does not distribute either subject or predicate. So, the middle term 'waters' forming its subject is not distributed. Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

Let's break down this logical deduction question! We're given two statements: 1. No bat is ball. This means there's no overlap between the 'bat' group and the 'ball' group. 2. No ball is wicket. This means there's no overlap between the 'ball' group and the 'wicket' group. Now let's analyze the conclusions: Conclusion I: No bat is wicket. Just because bats and balls don't overlap, and balls and wickets don't overlap, doesn't automatically mean bats and wickets *also* don't overlap. They *could*, but the statements don't guarantee it. Think of it like this: I don't like apples, and apples aren't oranges. That doesn't mean I dislike oranges. So, this conclusion doesn't necessarily follow . Conclusion II: All wickets are bats. This is definitely not true. The statements give us *no* information to suggest that all wickets are bats. There's no link or containment implied. This conclusion doesn't follow . Therefore, neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows . So the correct answer is Option D: Neither I nor II follows .

As discussed above, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No flower is fruit'. I is the converse of this conclusion and thus it follows. II is the converse of the first premise and so it also holds.

'Every' is equivalent to 'All'. Thus, since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, I follows. II is the converse of the second premise and thus it also holds.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative. So, neither I nor II follows.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative. Also, the conclusion should not contain the middle term. So, II follows; I is the converse of II and thus it also holds.

The first premise is an I type proposition. So, the middle term 'angels' forming the predicate is not distributed. The second premise is an A type proposition. So, the middle term 'angels' forming the predicate is not distributed. Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

The first premise is an E-type proposition, So, the middle term 'gentleman' forming the subject is distributed. The second premise is an A-type proposition. So, the middle term 'gentlemen' forming the subject is distributed. Since the middle term is distributed twice, the conclusion cannot be universal. Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. Thus, it follows that 'Some rich men are not poor'. Thus, neither I nor II follows.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, I follows. Since both the premises are affirmative, the conclusion cannot be negative. Thus, II does not follow.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some heavy things are grey in colour'. I is a cumulative result of this conclusion and the first premise. Thus, only I holds.

Since the middle term 'good athletes' is distributed twice in the premises, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So it follows that 'Some of those who win, eat well'.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, I follows. II is the converse of the second premise and so it also holds.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, only I follows.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows. However, II is the converse of the second premise and thus it holds.

Since the middle term 'tigers' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, I and II involve only the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. So, either I or II follows.

Clearly, the term 'guns' is distributed in both the conclusions without being distributed in any of the premises. So, neither conclusion follows.

Since the first premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. Thus, only I follows.

Since the middle term 'papers' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, I and II involve only the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either I or II follows.

Since the middle term 'tall' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, II is the converse of the second premise and so it holds.

Since both premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows. However, I is the converse of second premise, while II is the converse of the first premise. So, both of them hold.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. Thus, only II follows.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, only I follows.

Since the middle term 'chalks' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, II is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.

The data does not mention whether all intelligent girls are married to bureaucrats. So, either I or II may follow.

Since the middle term 'engineer' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, I is the converse of the first premise and thus it holds.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative. Also, the conclusion should not contain the middle term. So, I follows. However, II is the converse of the second premise and thus it also holds,

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows. However, I is the converse of the second premise and thus it holds.

Since on premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. Conclusion II cannot follow as it contains the middle term. So, only I follows.

As discussed above, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some books are not pencils'. However, I and II involve only the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either I or II follows.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, I follows. II is the converse of I and thus it also holds.

Both the premises are A type propositions. So, in either, the middle term 'handles' forming the predicate is not distributed. Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows

As discussed above, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some cameras are not magazines'. However, I and II involve only the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either I or II follows.

As discussed above, it follows that 'All huts are temples'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds. II is the converse of the second premise and so it also holds.

Let's break down this logical deduction question! First, let's understand the statements: * Some books are tables: This means a part of the 'books' group overlaps with the 'tables' group. * Some tables are mirrors: This means a part of the 'tables' group overlaps with the 'mirrors' group. Now, let's analyze the conclusions: * Conclusion I: Some mirrors are books: The statements don't directly link books and mirrors. It's possible, but not guaranteed. There's no direct connection established that *requires* some mirrors to be books. * Conclusion II: No book is mirror: Again, the statements don't directly link books and mirrors to say definitively that they *cannot* overlap. It's possible there is *no* overlap, but it's not a certainty based on the given information. Notice that Conclusions I and II are contradictory. They cannot both be true at the same time (either some mirrors *are* books, or *no* mirror is a book). But they *could* both be false (some mirrors might be books, and some might not). The 'Either...or...' situation arises when we have contradictory conclusions, and there's no definitive information to support either one individually. Since we cannot definitively say that *either* conclusion I or conclusion II *must* be true, but one of them has to be true given their contradiction, the answer is: Option C: Either I or II follows

Since the middle term 'fly' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.