Two Statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. 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. Statements: Some windows are houses. Some windows are roofs. Conclusions: I. Some roofs are houses. II. Some roofs are windows.
Only conclusion II follows.
This question asks us to evaluate two statements and determine which of the given conclusions logically follow from them. We must assume the statements are true, even if they don't align with real-world knowledge. This type of problem is common in logical reasoning tests.
We are given the following statements:
These statements describe relationships between sets of things: windows, houses, and roofs. The word "Some" indicates that there is at least one element in common between the described sets, but not necessarily all elements.
Conclusion I states: Some roofs are houses.
Let's consider the information provided by the statements:
The statements establish a relationship between 'windows' and 'houses', and between 'windows' and 'roofs'. However, they do not provide any direct or indirect relationship between 'houses' and 'roofs'. The group of 'some windows' that are 'houses' could be completely different from the group of 'some windows' that are 'roofs'. It is possible that no 'roofs' are 'houses' based *only* on the information given.
Therefore, Conclusion I ("Some roofs are houses") does not logically follow from the given statements.
Conclusion II states: Some roofs are windows.
Let's look at Statement 2 again: Some windows are roofs.
In logic, if a statement says "Some A are B", it implies that "Some B are A". This is because the relationship of "some are" denotes an overlap or intersection between two sets. If there is an overlap where some elements of set A are also in set B, then it necessarily means that some elements of set B are also in set A.
Since Statement 2 says "Some windows are roofs", it logically follows that "Some roofs are windows".
Therefore, Conclusion II ("Some roofs are windows") logically follows from the given statements.
Based on the analysis of each conclusion:
Thus, only conclusion II follows from the given statements.
| Statements | Conclusions | Logically Follows? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Some windows are houses. | I. Some roofs are houses. | No | No direct or indirect link between roofs and houses is established by the statements. |
| Some windows are roofs. | II. Some roofs are windows. | Yes | Follows directly from the premise "Some windows are roofs" (If Some A are B, then Some B are A). |
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Statement 1 | Some windows are houses. |
| Statement 2 | Some windows are roofs. |
| Conclusion I | Some roofs are houses. |
| Conclusion II | Some roofs are windows. |
| Result | Only Conclusion II follows. |
Syllogisms are a form of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
The ration of the number of girls and boys in a school is 8 : 7. If the percentage increase in the number of girls and boys is 10% and 20% respectively, what will be the new ratio?
The cheapest means of transport is:
The property of Catenation is most readily predominant in:
Which newspaper edited by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, was one of the strongest critics of the British rule?
Which of the following is NOT a cause of food and water contamination?