Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Questions and Answers

Q: Which of the following shows the correct relationship among players, Kabaddi players and Football players ?

The key gives a large circle, with two separate smaller circles inside it.Kabaddi players and football players are both players, so both smaller sets must lie inside the circle for players. Of the four diagrams, only this one places both inside the large circle; it shows the two groups as separate, which is the reading the key adopts.Three concentric circles would mean every football player is a kabaddi player (or the reverse). A circle outside the large one would mean some kabaddi or football players are not players at all. Three circles in a row, each overlapping the next, would mean some kabaddi players are not players. All three contradict the fact that both groups are players.

Q: Which of the following diagrams shows the correct relationship among the three terms - Women, Sisters, Mothers ?

The correct diagram is (B): two overlapping circles inside a large circle.Sisters and mothers are both women, so both circles lie inside the circle for women. The two groups overlap, because some women are both sisters and mothers, some sisters are not mothers, and some mothers are not sisters (a woman with no siblings who has children).(A) keeps sisters and mothers apart, as if no woman could be both. (C) nests one group wholly inside the other, as if every mother were a sister. (D) puts one group outside the women altogether, which is impossible since every sister and every mother is a woman.

Q: Which of the following is/are the valid conclusion/s based on the statements given below ?Statement I : All players are aggressive.Statement II : Some politicians are aggressive.Conclusion 1 : Some politicians are not aggressive.Conclusion 2 : Some players are politicians.Codes :

Neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 follows.Conclusion 1, 'Some politicians are not aggressive', cannot be drawn from 'Some politicians are aggressive'. 'Some are' does not tell us that others are not; it is possible that every politician is aggressive.Conclusion 2, 'Some players are politicians', does not follow either. Players and politicians are both linked only to the class of aggressive people. All players lie inside that class and some politicians lie inside it too, but the two groups may sit in different parts of it without overlapping. Since neither conclusion is certain, the options '1 only', '2 only' and '1 and 2 both' are all wrong.

Q: By drinking Bornvita with water gives energy, by drinking Complan with water gives energy, by drinking milk with water gives energy. Therefore, by drinking water one gets energy. This is an example of ..................... .

This is an example of a fallacy.In each case the energy comes from Bournvita (printed 'Bornvita'), Complan or milk, not from the water in which they are taken. Concluding that water gives energy because it is present in every case attributes the effect to the wrong common factor. It is a faulty inference, a fallacy of false cause (and, in Indian logic, of a wrong vyapti).An invariable relation (vyapti) would need water to give energy in every case on its own, which it does not. Perception and comparison (upamana) are other means of knowledge, not descriptions of this flawed argument.

Q: Which of the following is/are the valid conclusion/s based on the statements given below ?Statement I : All birds are white.Statement II : All parrots are birds.Conclusion 1 : Some birds are white.Conclusion 2 : Some parrots are white.Conclusion 3 : All parrots are green.Conclusion 4 : Some birds are not white.

The valid conclusions are 1 and 2 only.From 'All birds are white', the particular 'Some birds are white' follows (conclusion 1, by subalternation). From 'All parrots are birds' and 'All birds are white', the syllogism gives 'All parrots are white', so 'Some parrots are white' follows too (conclusion 2).Conclusion 3 contradicts that result, since the parrots must be white, not green. Conclusion 4 contradicts statement I directly. So every option including 3 or 4 is wrong.

Q: Which of the following diagrams shows the correct relationship among the terms :Entrepreneurs, Married, Women ?

The correct diagram is three circles, each overlapping both of the others, with a region common to all three.Some entrepreneurs are married and some are not; some entrepreneurs are women and some are not; some women are married and some are not; and some people are all three, married women entrepreneurs. Every pair overlaps and all three share a region.Concentric circles would make one class wholly inside another, the chain would deny any overlap between two of the classes, and a separate circle would make one class share nothing with the others.

Q: Which of the following conclusion/s is/are valid based on the statements given below ?Statement I : Some tigers are goats.Statement II : All political leaders are intelligent.Conclusion 1 : Some goats are not tigers.Conclusion 2 : Some political leaders are intelligent.Code :

The valid conclusion is 2 only.'All political leaders are intelligent' implies that some political leaders are intelligent (a universal statement implies the particular, taking the class to have members), so Conclusion 2 follows.'Some tigers are goats' tells us nothing about whether any goats lie outside the tigers; it is possible that all goats are tigers. So 'Some goats are not tigers' does not follow, and every option including Conclusion 1 is wrong.

Q: Which of the following conclusion/s is/are valid based on the statements given below ?Statement I : All tax payers are honest.Statement II : All students are honest.Conclusion 1 : Some tax payers are not honest.Conclusion 2 : Some students are tax payers.Code :

The answer is Neither 1 nor 2.Conclusion 1, 'Some tax payers are not honest', directly contradicts Statement I, 'All tax payers are honest', so it cannot follow.Conclusion 2, 'Some students are tax payers', does not follow either. Both statements only say that tax payers and students lie inside the set of honest people; they could be completely separate groups within it. Two 'All ... are honest' statements say nothing about how tax payers and students overlap. So neither conclusion is valid.

Which of the following shows the correct relationship among players, Kabaddi players and Football players ?

A.Three concentric circles, each one inside the next
B.A large circle containing one smaller circle, with a third circle outside it
C.A large circle, with two separate smaller circles inside it
D.Three equal circles in a row, each overlapping the next

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: C

The key gives a large circle, with two separate smaller circles inside it.

Kabaddi players and football players are both players, so both smaller sets must lie inside the circle for players. Of the four diagrams, only this one places both inside the large circle; it shows the two groups as separate, which is the reading the key adopts.

Three concentric circles would mean every football player is a kabaddi player (or the reverse). A circle outside the large one would mean some kabaddi or football players are not players at all. Three circles in a row, each overlapping the next, would mean some kabaddi players are not players. All three contradict the fact that both groups are players.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following diagrams shows the correct relationship among the three terms - Women, Sisters, Mothers ?

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2020, SET Exam - 2020,

Answer: B

The correct diagram is (B): two overlapping circles inside a large circle.

Sisters and mothers are both women, so both circles lie inside the circle for women. The two groups overlap, because some women are both sisters and mothers, some sisters are not mothers, and some mothers are not sisters (a woman with no siblings who has children).

(A) keeps sisters and mothers apart, as if no woman could be both. (C) nests one group wholly inside the other, as if every mother were a sister. (D) puts one group outside the women altogether, which is impossible since every sister and every mother is a woman.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following is/are the valid conclusion/s based on the statements given below ?

Statement I : All players are aggressive.
Statement II : Some politicians are aggressive.
Conclusion 1 : Some politicians are not aggressive.
Conclusion 2 : Some players are politicians.

Codes :

A.1 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 2 both
D.Neither 1 nor 2

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2020, SET Exam - 2020,

Answer: D

Neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 follows.

Conclusion 1, 'Some politicians are not aggressive', cannot be drawn from 'Some politicians are aggressive'. 'Some are' does not tell us that others are not; it is possible that every politician is aggressive.

Conclusion 2, 'Some players are politicians', does not follow either. Players and politicians are both linked only to the class of aggressive people. All players lie inside that class and some politicians lie inside it too, but the two groups may sit in different parts of it without overlapping. Since neither conclusion is certain, the options '1 only', '2 only' and '1 and 2 both' are all wrong.

Discuss in Forum

By drinking Bornvita with water gives energy, by drinking Complan with water gives energy, by drinking milk with water gives energy. Therefore, by drinking water one gets energy. This is an example of ..................... .

A.Invariable relation
B.Fallacy
C.Perception
D.Comparison

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: B

This is an example of a fallacy.

In each case the energy comes from Bournvita (printed 'Bornvita'), Complan or milk, not from the water in which they are taken. Concluding that water gives energy because it is present in every case attributes the effect to the wrong common factor. It is a faulty inference, a fallacy of false cause (and, in Indian logic, of a wrong vyapti).

An invariable relation (vyapti) would need water to give energy in every case on its own, which it does not. Perception and comparison (upamana) are other means of knowledge, not descriptions of this flawed argument.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following is/are the valid conclusion/s based on the statements given below ?

Statement I : All birds are white.
Statement II : All parrots are birds.

Conclusion 1 : Some birds are white.
Conclusion 2 : Some parrots are white.
Conclusion 3 : All parrots are green.
Conclusion 4 : Some birds are not white.

A.1 and 2 only
B.1 and 3 only
C.2 and 3 only
D.3 and 4 only

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: A

The valid conclusions are 1 and 2 only.

From 'All birds are white', the particular 'Some birds are white' follows (conclusion 1, by subalternation). From 'All parrots are birds' and 'All birds are white', the syllogism gives 'All parrots are white', so 'Some parrots are white' follows too (conclusion 2).

Conclusion 3 contradicts that result, since the parrots must be white, not green. Conclusion 4 contradicts statement I directly. So every option including 3 or 4 is wrong.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following diagrams shows the correct relationship among the terms :

Entrepreneurs, Married, Women ?

A.Three concentric circles, each inside the next
B.Three circles in a row, the middle one overlapping each of the outer two, which do not overlap each other
C.Three circles, each overlapping both of the others, with a region common to all three
D.One circle inside a larger circle, with a third circle separate from both

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: C

The correct diagram is three circles, each overlapping both of the others, with a region common to all three.

Some entrepreneurs are married and some are not; some entrepreneurs are women and some are not; some women are married and some are not; and some people are all three, married women entrepreneurs. Every pair overlaps and all three share a region.

Concentric circles would make one class wholly inside another, the chain would deny any overlap between two of the classes, and a separate circle would make one class share nothing with the others.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following conclusion/s is/are valid based on the statements given below ?

Statement I : Some tigers are goats.
Statement II : All political leaders are intelligent.
Conclusion 1 : Some goats are not tigers.
Conclusion 2 : Some political leaders are intelligent.

Code :

A.1 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 2 both
D.Neither 1 nor 2

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: B

The valid conclusion is 2 only.

'All political leaders are intelligent' implies that some political leaders are intelligent (a universal statement implies the particular, taking the class to have members), so Conclusion 2 follows.

'Some tigers are goats' tells us nothing about whether any goats lie outside the tigers; it is possible that all goats are tigers. So 'Some goats are not tigers' does not follow, and every option including Conclusion 1 is wrong.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following conclusion/s is/are valid based on the statements given below ?

Statement I : All tax payers are honest.
Statement II : All students are honest.
Conclusion 1 : Some tax payers are not honest.
Conclusion 2 : Some students are tax payers.

Code :

A.1 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 2 both
D.Neither 1 nor 2

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: D

The answer is Neither 1 nor 2.

Conclusion 1, 'Some tax payers are not honest', directly contradicts Statement I, 'All tax payers are honest', so it cannot follow.

Conclusion 2, 'Some students are tax payers', does not follow either. Both statements only say that tax payers and students lie inside the set of honest people; they could be completely separate groups within it. Two 'All ... are honest' statements say nothing about how tax payers and students overlap. So neither conclusion is valid.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications