Statements:
1. All cars are vehicles.
2. Some vehicles are not machines.
Conclusions:
I. Some cars are not machines.
II. All vehicles are cars.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
We know all cars are vehicles, but the vehicles that are not machines might be entirely outside the 'cars' circle. Therefore, Conclusion I is not definite. Conclusion II is a reverse of an 'All' statement, which is generally invalid. Neither follows.
Statement:
The old order changed yielding place to new.
Conclusions:
I. Change is the law of nature.
II. Discard old ideas because they are old.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
The statement reflects a philosophical truth that old things are eventually replaced by new things, reflecting the law of continuous change (I). However, it does not prescribe actively discarding ideas *just* because they are old (II).
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!