Residency is a famous housing complex with many well-established individuals among its residents. A recent survey conducted among the residents of the complex revealed that all of those residents who are well established in their respective fields happen to be academicians. The survey also revealed that most of these academicians are authors of some best-selling books.
Based only on the information provided above, which one of the following statements can be logically inferred with certainty?
Residency Complex Logic Puzzle
Premises Recap
- Fact 1: If a resident is well-established (WE), then they are an academician (AC). This means the set of well-established residents is a subset of the academicians. (WE ⊆ AC)
- Fact 2: Most academicians who are well-established (i.e., members of WE) are authors (BS). This directly implies that some well-established residents are authors. (WE ∩ BS ≠ ∅)
Analyzing Options
- Option 1: "Some residents of the complex who are well established in their fields are also authors of some best-selling books." This translates to "Some WE are BS". This is a direct and certain inference from Fact 2. This is the correct inference.
- Option 2: "All academicians residing in the complex are well established in their fields." This implies (AC ⊆ WE). Fact 1 states the reverse (WE ⊆ AC), so this cannot be inferred.
- Option 3: "Some authors of best-selling books are residents of the complex who are well established in their fields." This translates to "Some BS are WE". This is logically equivalent to Option 1 and also derivable from Fact 2.
- Option 4: "Some academicians residing in the complex are well established in their fields." This implies (Some AC are WE). Fact 1 (WE ⊆ AC) does not guarantee that any residents *are* well-established (WE might be an empty set). Therefore, this cannot be inferred with certainty.
The inference that aligns perfectly and certainly with the provided statements is that some well-established residents are authors.
Important Questions from Logical Deduction
- Consider the following two phonological rules:
Rule 1: Vowel Epenthesis of [ɪ] after sibilant-ending stems
Rule 2: Progressive Voicing Assimilation of the plural affix
Which ONE of the following rule ordering relations apply in the case of regular English pluralization as in ‘horse’ – ‘horses’? - Based only on the conversation below, identify the logically correct inference:
“Even if I had known that you were in the hospital, I would not have gone there to see you", Ramya told Josephine. Consider a five-digit number PQRST that has distinct digits P, Q, R, S and T, and satisfies the following conditions:
$P < Q$
$S > P > T$
$R < T$
If integers 1 through 5 are used to construct such a number, the value of P is:- The police arrested four criminals – P, Q, R and S. The criminals knew each other. They made the following statements:
P says "Q committed the crime.”
Q says "S committed the crime. "
R says"I did not do it."
S says "What Q said about me is false."
Assume only one of the arrested four committed the crime and only one of the statements made above is true. Who committed the crime? - P, Q, and R talk about S's car collection. P states that S has at least 3 cars. Q believes that S has less than 3 cars. R indicates that to his knowledge, S has at least one car. Only one of P, Q and R is right. The number of cars owned by S is
