This question is based on the classical Square of Opposition, which describes logical relationships between four types of categorical statements: A (universal affirmative: "All S are P"), E (universal negative: "No S are P"), I (particular affirmative: "Some S are P"), and O (particular negative: "Some S are not P").
The given statement, "No football players are kind-hearted human beings", is an E-type (universal negative) statement.
The question asks for the statement that is CONTRARY to this. In the square of opposition, the "contrary" relationship exists specifically between the A-type and E-type statements that share the same subject and predicate: they cannot both be true at the same time, but they CAN both be false at the same time.
The A-type statement with the same subject (football players) and predicate (kind-hearted human beings) is: "All football players are kind-hearted human beings" — this is exactly Option 4, and it is the contrary of the given E-type statement.
Let's rule out the other options to reinforce the concept:
- "Some football players are kind-hearted human beings" (Option 1) is the I-type statement — this is actually the CONTRADICTORY of the given E-type statement (contradictories always have opposite truth values), not the contrary.
- "Some football players are not kind-hearted human beings" (Option 2) is the O-type statement, which is implied by (subalternate to) the E-type statement being true — it is not the contrary.
- "No kind-hearted human beings are football players" (Option 3) is simply the converse of the given E-type statement (E-type statements convert validly), so it means essentially the same thing as the original — it is not a contrary, it's equivalent.
So the correct answer is Option 4: All football players are kind-hearted human beings