Statement: The traffic signal turned green. Conclusions: I. Vehicles may start moving. II. Pedestrians should not cross. MCQ with Answer and Explanation
Explanation:
I is too absolute. II contradicts the statement; 'children love ice cream' as a general statement doesn't allow 'some may dislike' if it's a universal claim. If it's taken as all children, then II contradicts; if it's a generic statement, II still cannot be deduced. Typically in reasoning, such a statement means 'all children', so II does not follow. Neither follows.
Explanation:
I is a generalization. II is already given ('the school bus'). Neither new conclusion is drawn; both restatements or generalizations. Usually such questions: I does not follow (all). II is just repeating. So neither.
Statements:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
Conclusions:
I. Socrates is mortal.
II. All mortals are men.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
Since Socrates falls within the category of 'man', and the entire category of 'man' falls within 'mortal', Socrates must be mortal (I follows). Not all mortals are men (e.g., animals), which makes II false.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!