Statements:
1. All roses are flowers.
2. Some flowers are red.
Conclusions:
I. Some roses are red.
II. All red things are flowers.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
Roses are inside the flower circle, and the red circle intersects the flower circle. However, there's no guarantee the red circle intersects the rose circle specifically. Thus, I does not follow. II is a reversal of a 'some' statement, which is invalid.
Statement: Since inequality is built in, wherever there is development there is little that can be done to arrest it except at the cost of development itself.
Conclusions:
I. To achieve development, inequality should be allowed to continue.
II. Equality and development do not go together.
Explanation:
Both conclusions follow from the statement. If arresting inequality comes at the cost of development, then to achieve development, inequality must be allowed (I). Also, it implies equality and development are not compatible (II).
Statement:
Quality has a price tag. India is allocating plenty of funds to education.
Conclusions:
I. Quality of education in India would improve.
II. Funding alone can enhance the quality of education.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
The statement sets up a correlation between price (funds) and quality. If India is allocating funds to education, it logically follows that the intended quality would improve (I). However, the statement doesn't claim funding *alone* is sufficient without proper execution (II does not follow).
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!