Statement - Conclusions Questions and Answers

Answer: D

The answer is Neither 1 nor 2 follows the statement.

The statement only says that spinners scored 160 of the team's 200 runs, which is 80% of the runs. It says nothing about how many players were spinners: a few spinners could have scored most of the runs. So conclusion 1, which confuses share of runs with share of players, does not follow.

Nothing is said about the batting order either, so conclusion 2, that the openers were spinners, does not follow.

Answer: C

Both conclusions I and II are true.

Combine the statements into one chain: \(X \le S\) and \(K \ge S\) give \(X \le S \le K\), and \(K \lt L\) extends it:

\[ X \le S \le K \lt L \]

Conclusion I, \(K \ge X\): from the chain, K is at least S, which is at least X, so it is true. Conclusion II, \(L \gt S\): L is greater than K, which is at least S, so L is strictly greater than S, true. Hence both follow.

Answer: B

Only conclusion II follows. The statement says education brings quality to life and that investment in it is the biggest asset. Conclusion II, that a single educated person can bring change to the family, is in line with this: education improving life quality is exactly what lets one educated member raise the standard of a household. Conclusion I says people do not want to invest much in education. The statement gives no information about people's willingness to invest and, by calling the investment the biggest asset, points the other way, so I does not follow. Because II follows alone, either-or and neither are ruled out.

Answer: D

Both statements start with 'Some persons', so one group of persons are good and some persons (maybe the same ones, maybe not) are intelligent. Nothing links the good persons and the intelligent persons, since the two groups are not stated to overlap. A Venn diagram can show two separate circles inside the larger circle of persons, in which no intelligent person is good, so neither 'Some intelligent people are good' nor 'Some good people are intelligent' has to be true. Two particular (some) premises never give a conclusion in syllogisms, so neither conclusion follows. The answer is the fourth option, neither of the two conclusions is correct.

Answer: B

Both statements are universal: all poets and all painters lie inside the set of daydreamers. The two sets, poets and painters, are both subsets of daydreamers but nothing connects them to each other. Conclusion I, all painters are poets, does not follow, as the painters circle can lie outside the poets circle. Conclusion II, some daydreamers are not painters, is possible when there are poets who are not painters, but it is not certain, since the painters may be all the daydreamers. A conclusion that is only possible does not follow. So no conclusion emerges, which is the second option.

Answer: B

Only conclusion (II) follows. The second statement says some foods are pains, and that is reversible: if some foods are pains, then some pains are foods, so conclusion (II) holds. Conclusion (I) claims that some pains are bats. All bats are foods, so bats lie inside the set of foods, but the pains that are foods may be a different part of that set, so nothing links pains to bats. A Venn diagram with the pains overlapping only the foods outside the bats satisfies both statements and breaks (I). So option B is correct, and the options that include (I) are wrong.

Answer: C

Conclusions I and III follow. Statement II says some comics are storybooks, and reading it the other way round, some storybooks are comics, which is conclusion I. Since all storybooks are textbooks, the storybooks that are comics are textbooks, so some textbooks are comics, which is conclusion III.

Conclusion II, some textbooks are novels, would need a link between novels and storybooks. Novels are linked only to comics, and only some of them, so it does not follow.

Answer: A

Only conclusion I follows. All cats are dogs, and some bats are cats, so those bats that are cats are also dogs: some dogs are bats. Conclusion I is therefore forced by statements II and III.

Conclusion II says some cats are rats. The only link between rats and the rest is that some rats are bats, and some bats are cats, but the bats that are rats need not be the bats that are cats, so no overlap of cats and rats is guaranteed. Conclusion III, some dogs are rats, depends on the same missing link and does not follow either. That is why ‘Only conclusion I follows’ is right and the options with II or III are wrong.

Answer: D

Only conclusion I follows. 'Most erasers are sharpeners' means at least some erasers are sharpeners, and reversed, some sharpeners are erasers, so I holds. II says all erasers are pencils, but only the converse is given (all pencils are erasers), and some erasers are sharpeners, so II does not follow. III says no pencils are sharpeners, which flatly contradicts the statement 'Some sharpeners are pencils'.

So none, I with III, and I with II are all wrong.

Answer: B

Only conclusions I and II follow. The statements give a chain: all doors are windows, some windows are drawers, all drawers are wood. "Some windows are drawers" is reversible, so "Some drawers are windows" follows (II). Because every drawer is wood, those drawers that are windows are wood, so some windows are wood, and the reverse "Some wood are windows" follows (I). Conclusion III, "Some wood are doors", would need a drawer that is also a door, but the statements only say all doors are windows and some windows are drawers; the doors and the drawers among the windows may not overlap, so III does not follow. Hence only I and II follow.