Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statements is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: I. All M are Q. II. No L is Q. Conclusions: I. No M is L. II. Some L are not M.
Both conclusions I and II follow
This question asks us to analyze two statements and determine which of the given conclusions logically follow from them, assuming the statements are true.
Let's break down what these statements mean. Statement I tells us that the entire group or set M is contained within the group or set Q. Think of it like this: if something is an M, it must also be a Q.
Statement II tells us that there is absolutely no overlap between the group or set L and the group or set Q. If something is an L, it cannot be a Q, and vice versa.
We can visualize this relationship using a conceptual Venn Diagram. Imagine three circles representing sets M, Q, and L.
Now, let's look at the conclusions:
Based on our understanding from the statements:
If L is completely outside Q, and M is completely inside Q, then there is no way for L and M to overlap. Therefore, it logically follows that No M is L. This conclusion is true.
Again, consider the relationship derived from the statements:
Since No L is Q, it means every single element of L is outside of Q. And because All M are Q, it means M is inside Q. If every L is outside Q, and M is inside Q, then every L must necessarily be outside M. In other words, No L is M.
If No L is M is true (meaning not a single L is an M), then it is certainly true that Some L are not M. If *all* Ls are not Ms, then *some* Ls are definitely not Ms. This conclusion also logically follows.
From the statements "All M are Q" and "No L is Q", we deduced that:
Both conclusions are logically supported by the given statements.
| Statement Type | Relation | Example Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Affirmative (A) | All X are Y | X $\subseteq$ Y |
| Universal Negative (E) | No X is Y | X $\cap$ Y = $\emptyset$ |
| Particular Affirmative (I) | Some X are Y | X $\cap$ Y $\neq$ $\emptyset$ |
| Particular Negative (O) | Some X are not Y | Some X $\notin$ Y |
Syllogisms are a form of logical reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two or more premises (statements). The statements provide information about the relationships between different categories or terms. The goal is to determine if a conclusion necessarily follows from these relationships, assuming the statements are true, even if they contradict general knowledge.
Key points to remember when solving syllogism problems:
In this specific problem, the combination of "All M are Q" and "No L is Q" creates a clear separation between M and L, making both "No M is L" and consequently "Some L are not M" valid conclusions.
Premises : All metals are grey in colour. Some metals are heavy.
Conclusion: I. All heavy metals are grey in colour.
II. All light metals are not grey in colour.
Premises : All film stars are playback singers. All film directors are film stars.
Conclusion: I. All film directors are playback singers.
II. Some film stars are film directors.
Premises : All apples are golden in colour. No golden coloured things are cheap.
Conclusion: I. All apples are cheap.
II. Golden coloured apples are not cheap.
Read the given statement and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statement is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statement.
Statement:
All reds are black.
Conclusions:
1. Some blacks are red.
2. Some reds are black.