Three statements are given, followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statement : All shoes are slippers. All slippers are socks. All socks are sandals Conclusions: (I) Some sandals are slippers (II) Some socks are shoes. (III) All sandals are shoes.
Both Conclusion I and II follow.
This problem asks us to analyze logical conclusions drawn from given statements, a common task in syllogism questions. We assume the statements are true and determine which of the provided conclusions logically follow.
One effective way to solve syllogism problems is by using Venn diagrams. We represent each category (shoes, slippers, socks, sandals) as circles and show the relationships described in the statements.
Let's visualize the statements:
The resulting diagram will show concentric circles, with 'shoes' as the innermost, followed by 'slippers', then 'socks', and finally 'sandals' as the outermost circle.
Diagrammatic representation:
Sandals > Socks > Slippers > Shoes (where '>' means 'contains')
Look at the Venn diagram. The circle for 'slippers' is located inside the circle for 'sandals'. If all slippers are within the sandals category, it means that the area covered by slippers is also part of the area covered by sandals. Therefore, there is an overlap, and specifically, all slippers are sandals. If all slippers are sandals, then it is definitely true that some sandals are slippers. This conclusion logically follows from the statements.
Look at the Venn diagram again. The circle for 'shoes' is located inside the circle for 'socks'. This means that all shoes fall within the category of socks. If all shoes are socks, then the area covered by shoes is part of the area covered by socks. This implies that there is an overlap, and specifically, all shoes are socks. If all shoes are socks, then it is definitely true that some socks are shoes. This conclusion logically follows from the statements.
Examine the Venn diagram. The circle for 'sandals' is the outermost circle, and the circle for 'shoes' is the innermost circle. The sandals circle is much larger than the shoes circle, and only a part of the sandals circle is occupied by shoes (specifically, the part that contains socks, slippers, and shoes). It is not true that the entire 'sandals' circle is inside the 'shoes' circle. Therefore, the statement "All sandals are shoes" does not logically follow from the given statements. This conclusion does not follow.
| Conclusion | Follows? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| (I) Some sandals are slippers. | Yes | Since all slippers are socks and all socks are sandals, all slippers are also sandals. If all slippers are sandals, then some sandals must be slippers. |
| (II) Some socks are shoes. | Yes | Since all shoes are slippers and all slippers are socks, all shoes are also socks. If all shoes are socks, then some socks must be shoes. |
| (III) All sandals are shoes. | No | The diagram shows sandals contain socks, which contain slippers, which contain shoes. It is not necessary for all sandals to be shoes. Only the sandals that are also socks (and thus slippers and shoes) are shoes. |
Based on our analysis, both Conclusion I and Conclusion II logically follow from the given statements, while Conclusion III does not.
| Term | Explanation | Example Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | A proposition providing information about the relationship between two categories. | All A are B, Some A are B, No A are B, Some A are not B. |
| Conclusion | A proposition that is claimed to logically follow from the given statements. | Must be necessarily true if the statements are true. |
| Syllogism | A form of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two or more premises (statements). | Statements + Conclusion = Syllogism structure. |
Syllogisms are part of deductive reasoning. When solving syllogism problems, remember:
Common types of relationships in syllogisms:
In this specific problem, all statements were of the "All A are B" type, leading to nested inclusions in the Venn diagram.
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:
All fruits are stems.
Some fruits are leaves.
Conclusions:
I. Some stems are leaves.
II. Some leaves are fruits.
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:
Some students are players.
All players are male.
Conclusions:
I. All males are players.
II. Some males are students.
Read the given statement(s) 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 statement(s).
Statements:
Some Queens are kings.
All kings are officers.
No officer is architect.
Conclusions:
I. Some officers are queens.
II. No king is architect.
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:
No creative is an employer.
All experts are creative.
All workers are experts.
Conclusions:
I. No employer is an expert.
II. No worker is an employer.
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:
Some actors are choreographers.
All choreographers are producers.
Not a single producer is a director.
Conclusions:
I. Some actors are directors.
II. Not a single actor is a director.