Introduction

There are two main types of Syllogism question

2-Statements 3-Statements
Question Statement:
I. All cats are dogs
II. All dogs are birdsConclusion:
I. Some cats are birds
II. Some birds are cats.
Question Statement
A. All cats are dogs
B. some pigs are cats
. no dogs are birdsConclusion
I. some cats are dogs
II. no birds are cats
III. some pigs are birds
I!. some pigs are not birds
2 Statement Syllogism questions are usually found in IB"S #Ban$% and SS e&ams.
'"S SAT 2()2 e&am had quite a few questions on 3 Statement Syllogism.
In AT e&ams* they as$ 2 Statement Syllogism but they pac$ 3-+ such ,2-statement-
syllogism questions inside one question to ma$e it .ery time-consuming process.
In this article* you will learn how to sol.e the 2 Statement syllogism questions.
3 Statement syllogism syllogism is e&plained in separate article #/I0 12%. #They3re
mere an e&tension of the concepts e&plained in this article* so first master the 2-statement
technique here.%
There are three methods to sol.e 2-statement Syllogism questions.
). !enn 4iagram
In the e&am* 5a.e to thin$ of all possible ,!enn-4iagram-
situation and draw them to chec$ e.ery statement.6 time
consuming in the e&am hall.
). A2I7 #analytical
1ethod%
5a.e to mugup some rules* and spend some hours 8home
to master the ,A2I7- con.ersion in your head. But once
done* it is easy as a wal$ in the par$.
). 4istribution of terms
#Tic$ method%
'sually taught in AT coaching classes and study
material.
Technique is .ery fast but It e&cludes the concept of
,on.ersion- and ,omplementary cases-* hence
sometimes ma$es it difficult to sol.e non-AT questions.
The technique e&plained in this article* is a modified .ersion of A2I7 method combined with the
Tic$ 1ethod. /et3s call it U.P.-U.N. method.
Basics
Subject vs Predicate
onsider this question statement
). All cats are dogs
2. Some dogs are birds
3. 9o bird is a pig
+. Some pigs are not birds.
In all such statements* first-term is called sub:ect and second is called predicate.
It doesn3t matter what word is gi.en; Table* hair* <a:a* 0almadi* 0animo=hi or 1adhu 0oda >
first term is sub:ect and second term is predicate.
/et3s reloo$ at those question statements
Sub:ect "redicate
). All cats are dogs ats 4ogs
2. Some dogs are birds 4ogs Birds
3. 9o bird is a pig Bird "ig
+. Some pigs are not birds. "igs Birds
I hope the Sub:ect .s. "redicate is clear now. /et3s mo.e to second thing
Classification of statement
In syllogism* each statement usually has following format
,&y= sub:ect is?are #not% predicate.-
@or e&ample*
Ay= Sub:ect Is?are #B?-not% "redicate
All ats Are 4ogs
Some "igs Are not birds
Based on ,&y=- and ,not-* we classify the statements as following
Statement Type odename
). All cats are dogs 'ni.ersal "ositi.e '"
2. Some dogs are birds "articular "ositi.e ""
3. 9o bird is a pig 'ni.ersal 9egati.e '9
+. Some pigs are not birds. "articular 9egati.e "9
"lease remember following words. Chene.er they come* you classify the statement accordingly.
All* e.ery* any* none* not a single* only etc.
'ni.ersal #positi.e or
negati.e%
Some* many* a few* quite a few* not many* .ery little* most of* almost*
generally* often* freqently* etc.
"articular #positi.e or
negati.e%
Standard format: conversion
The standard 2-statement syllogism question format is following;
). #&y=% ,A- is?are #B?- not% ,B-
2. #&y=% ,B- is?are #B?- not% ,-
So basically it is
). ADEB
2. BDE
#read as ,A to B then B to -%
Chat does this tell usF
Guestion statements must ha.e 79/H three terms. #A* B and %.
In the e&am* if they gi.e you two question statements with four terms then your time is sa.edI
Just tic$ the answer ,no conclusion can be drawn-.
@or e&ample
Guestion statements Answer
). All cats are 4ogs
2. Some birds are
pigs
9o conclusion can be drawn. Because it has four terms #cats* dogs* birds*
pigs%
A>EB
>E4
Anyways bac$ to the topic*
The standard format for question statements is;
). ADEB
2. BDE
). @irst termDE1iddle Term
2. 1iddle TermDEThird term
But if the gi.en question statements are not gi.en in this format* then we must con.ert them into
abo.e format. 7therwise we cannot proceed with answer. @or e&ample
Ki.en question statements are
). ADEB
2. DEB
This must be con.erted into
). ADEB
2. BDE
Ki.en question statements are
). BDEA
2. BDE
This must be con.erted into
). ADEB
2. BDE
7$* so how to con.ert the statementsF
Universal Positive (UP)
Ki.en Statement !alid con.ersions Type
Ki.en Statement; All ats are 4ogs
Some ats are dogs "articular "ositi.e #""%
Some dogs are cats "articular "ositi.e #""%
It means '" can be con.erted into "".
"lease note; if the statement is ,7nly 4ogs are cats-* then better con.ert it into ,All cats are
dogs-. #7nly A is B >E All B are A%
Universal Neative (UN)
Ki.en Statement !alid con.ersions Type
Ki.en Statement; 9o ats are 4ogs
Some dogs are not cats "articular 9egati.e #"9%
9o dogs are cats 'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9%
It means '9 can be con.erted into "9 or '9.
Particular Positive (PP)
Ki.en Statement !alid con.ersions Type
Some ats are 4ogs Some dogs are cats "articular "ositi.e #""%
It means "" can be con.erted into "" only.
Particular Neative
2&ample; Some ats are not 4ogs. In "articular negati.e statements #"9%* no con.ersion can be
made.
So "96can3t con.ert.
To sum up the con.ersion rules
Type !alid on.ersion
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% 7nly ""
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% "9 or '9
"articular "ositi.e #""% 7nly ""
"articular 9egati.e #"9% 9ot possible.
"lease note;
In some lower le.el e&ams* sometimes they directly as$ about con.ersion. @or e&ample
G. Chat can be concluded from the gi.en statement; ,Some "oliticians are honest men.-
!ns"er c#oices
). Some 5onest men are not "oliticians.
2. All 5onest men are not politician
3. Some 5onest men are politicians.
+. 9one of Abo.e.
#"lease donot read further* without sol.ing abo.e question.%
Solution
well* the gi.en statement ,Some "oliticians are honest men.- is a particular positi.e statement
#""%.
5ence according to our table* it can be con.erted into "" only. Therefore
Ki.en answer choice Thought process
). Some 5onest men are not "oliticians. "articular negati.e #"9%* hence eliminate.
). 9o 5onest men are politicians. 'ni.ersal 9egati.e* hence eliminate
). Some 5onest men are politicians. "" hence this is correct answer.
). 9one of Abo.e. >not applicable because is the correct answer.
In case you are wondering*
G. Some politicians are honest men.
In abo.e case* can3t the answer be ,A-; Some honest men are not politiciansF
Cell* if you go by !enn 4iagram method* it3ll lead to two cases hence it is ,doubtful-.
Case $%
4ata
Sub:ect #"oliticians%
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
3. <a:a
+. 0almadi
"redicate #5onest 1en%
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
In abo.e situation* can you say ,Some honest men are not politicians-F
Cell you can3t say that. Because both 5onest men #Sardar and Shastri% are in politician set.
Case $&
4ata
Sub:ect #"oliticians%
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
3. <a:a
+. 0almadi
"redicate #5onest 1en%
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
3. Bhagat Singh
+. handraSe$har A=ad
In abo.e situation* can you say ,Some honest men are not politicians-F
Hes you can. Because two 5onest men #Bhagat Singh and A=ad% are not in politician set.
The point is* whene.er ,two cases- are possible* you cannot Lsafely3 conclude one
statement.
5ence* if the statement is
Some ,A- are ,B->E it doesn3t mean Some ,B- are not ,A-.
The only .alid conclusion in abo.e case is ;Some ,B- are ,A-.
Therefore "articular "ositi.e #""% statement can be con.erted into "articular "ositi.e #""%
statement only.
Similarly
Type of Statement !alid on.ersion "ath
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
All cats#A% are dogs #B%
7nly ""
Some ats #A% are dogs. #B%
Some dogs #B% are cats. #A%
A to B
B to A
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9%
9o ats#A% are dogs #B%
"9 ;Some 4ogs #B% are not ats #A%.
B to A
'9; 9o 4ogs #B% are cats. #A%
"articular "ositi.e #""%
Some cats #A% are dogs #B%
7nly ""; Some dogs #B% are cats#A% B to A
"articular 9egati.e #"9% 9ot possible. >
Anyways bac$ to the topic* what are we discussingF
). Topic of discussion is; 5ow to sol.e 2 statement syllogism question
2. Sub:ect .s predicate
3. Type of statements #'"* '9* ""* "9%
+. Standard format and con.ersion.
The standard question format is
A>EB
B>E
If the gi.en question doesn3t ha.e statements in Mabo.e standard format* then we must con.ert
them into standard format. 7nly then we can proceed further.
So far* Ce constructed our shortcut table on how to con.ert the statements. 9ow
let's tr( some e)am*les
Guestion statements on.ersionF
). All ats are dogs#B%
2. Some dogs#B% are not
pigs.
Already in standard format #A to B and then B to %
hence no need to con.ert.
). Some dogs#B% are not
pigs.
2. All ats are dogs#B%
9o need to con.ert any statement.
Just e&change the position of first and second statement.
). All ats are dogs#B%
2. Some dogs#B% are not pigs.
). All ats are dogs #B%
2. All pigs are dogs#B%
5a.e to con.ert* because not in standard format.).All cats#A% are
dogs#B%
2.Some dogs#B% are pigs#%. #<ule '"-E only ""%
9ow coming to the heart of the matter; how to sol.e the #stupid% 2 statement syllogism questionF
No conclusion Combos
5ere are the non-conclusion combos when two question statements are in following format.
@irst statement #A to B% Second statement #B to % Answer
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
"articular "ositi.e #""% 9o conclusion
"articular 9egati.e #"9% 9o conclusion
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9%
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% 9o conclusion
"articular 9egati.e #"9% 9o conclusion
"articular "ositi.e #""%
"articular "ositi.e #""% 9o conclusion
"articular 9egati.e #"9% 9o conclusion
"articular 9egati.e #"9% Any other #'"* '9* ""* "9% 9o conclusion
+does it loo, difficult-
9ot really. /et3s condense this table into mug-up rules.
). '"3s politicians hate gi.ing particular statements #both positi.e and negati.e%. 2.g. they
donot re.eal their clear position on @4I in retail until the ))
th
hour.
2. 'nited 9ations hates negati.ity. #both 'ni.ersal and particular%
3. "ritish 9andy hates e.erybody.
+. Two-negati.es6no conclusion. #although implicit in 2B3%
N. Two particulars6no conclusion. #although implicit in )B3%
Please note: in Mabo.e situations definite conclusion is impossible. 5owe.er* sometimes two
answer choices are still possible ,either a or b-.
That concept is called ,omplimentary pairs-. Ce3ll learn about it at the bottom of this article.
@or the moment* let3s not complicate the matters with complimentary pairs.
7$ bac$ to topic* when you face a ,Two-statement syllogism question-F you3ll follow these
steps;
). first* ma$e sure it contains only three terms #AB% #else no conclusion.%
2. 1a$e sure question statements are in standard format #A to B then B to %. If not in
standard format* then re-arrange.
3. lassify the question statements. #'"* '9* ""* "9%
+. hec$ if the question statements ha.e no conclusion combos #MAbo.e rules%
if abo.e things donot yield an answer* then we3.e to thin$ about what will be the
,conclusion#s%-F
Conclusive-Combos
If you3.e followed abo.e steps* then question statements in the format ,A to B and then B to .-
@irst statement #A to B% Second statement #B to % onclusion
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% 'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% #A to %
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% 'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% #A to %
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9%
'ni.ersal positi.e #'"%
"articular 9egati.e #"9%. #C to !%
"articular "ositi.e #""%
"articular "ositi.e #""%
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% "articular "ositi.e #""% #A to %
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% "articular 9egati.e #"9% #A to %
As you can see from abo.e table*
The answer statement is usually in the format of A to . with e&ception when first question
statement is 'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9%.
/et3s condense this table into mug-up rules as well.
onclusi.e-ombos In your head* .isuali=e
). '"B'"6'" If 'ttar "radesh meets 'ttar "radesh* then its si=e doesn3t increase.
). '"B'96'9
If 'ttar "radesh meets 'nited 9ations then its si=e increases and it
becomes 'nited 9ations.
). '9B #'"?""%6"9
'nited 9ations Secretary Ban 0i 1oon is in .ery positi.e mood. But
he meets another positi.e person* and his attitude is totally reversed-
he becomes particularly negati.eI #reversed 6 to A%
). ""B
#'"?'9%6""?"9
Chen 1r."" obser.es the universe .ia 9ASA telescope* his mood
becomes positi.e or negati.e depending on the mood of uni.erse.
Try a question from SS-K/ #Tier-I* 2()(% e&am*
.emoQ: Cra/( men and 0omen
Guestion Statements
). All men are women.
2. All women are cra=y.
onclusion
). All 1en are cra=y
2. All the cra=y are men
3. Some of the cra=y are men
+. Some of the cra=y are women
Answer
a. 9one of the conclusion follows
b. All conclusions follow
c. 7nly )* 3 and + follow
d. 7nly 2 and 3 follow
#I suggest you pause here. @irst try to sol.e it on your own* without directly reading the solution.
If you3.e difficulty* re-read rules gi.en abo.e%
Solution
7ur standard operating procedure #S7"%
Guestion Statements
). All men are women.
2. All women are cra=y.
@irst step; ma$e sure four terms are not gi.en 6 chec$. 7nly three terms #men* women* cra=y%
Second step* ma$e sure they3re in standard format #A to B and then B to %; hec$ yes they3re.
5ence con.ersion is not required.
). All men#A% are women. #B% #'"%
). All women#B% are cra=y.#% #'"%
Third step* classify the statements.
). All men are women. 'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
). All women are cra=y. 'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
@ourth step; chec$ the combo for question statements.
Cell* since it is '"B'"6 its si=e doesn3t increase. 5ence conclusion should be '". #A to
% meaning All men#A% are cra=y.#%
hec$ the answer statements.
). All 1en are
cra=y
orrect.
). All the cra=y are
men
<ecall that ,con.ersion table-.'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% can be con.erted
only into "articular "ositi.e #""%.
Since All men are cra=y 6E Some ra=y are men.
But we cannot say All cra=y are men. So this option is false.
If you apply common sense at this stage; well* )
st
statement correct* and
2
nd
statement is false* hence answer is #%; only )* 3 and + followI
). Some of the
cra=y are men
orrect because of ,con.ersion table-
). Some of the
cra=y are women
Ki.en question statement ; All women are cra=y. #'ni.ersal positi.e%. If
we apply con.ersion table #'"6E ""% then Some ra=y are women.
5ence this statement is also correct.
@inal answer #%; only )* 3 and + follow
If you3re still staggering* I suggest you go through those rules again* note them down in a diary
in your own words and language* re.ise a few times. Then try ne&t question
.emoQ: Intellient Poets and siners
Guestion Statements #SS-"7 e&am%
). All poets are intelligent
2. All singers are intelligent.
onclusion
). all singers are poets
2. some intelligent persons are not singers
!ns"er c#oices
a. only conclusion one follows
b. only conclusion two follows
c. either conclusion one or conclusion two follows
d. neither follows
solution
first step; does the question statements ha.e only three termsF hec$; Hes. Singers* poets*
intelligent. Kood* proceed with ne&t step.
Second step; Are the question statements gi.en in standard format #A to B then B to %F
hec$. 9ope
). All poets #A% are intelligent #B%
2. All singers #% are intelligent. #B%
Then we ha.e to con.ert it into standard format. And since both statements are uni.ersal
positi.e* we don3t need to worry about which statement to con.ert firstF #that ,priority order-*
more about it* e&plained at the bottom of this article.%
Second statement is uni.ersal positi.e #'"%* according to our table* we can only con.ert it into
particular positi.e #""% therefore
All singers #% are intelligent. #B%66E Some intelligent persons#B% are singers.#%
9ow the new question statements* in the standard format #A to B then B to % are
). All poets are intelligent #B%
2. Some intelligent persons#B% are singers.
Third step* classify the question statements
question statement type
). All poets#A% are intelligent #B% 'ni.ersal positi.e #'"%
2. Some intelligent persons#B% are singers.#% "articular positi.e #""%
@ourth step* apply the combo rules.
Since '"3s politicians hate particular statements #both positi.e and negati.e%* hence no
conclusion can be drawn. That means we cannot connect A to or to A.
9ow chec$ the Answer statements
i. all singers#% are
poets #A%
@alse. '"B""6no conclusion* as e&plained abo.e.
ii. some intelligent
persons are not
singers
hec$ the second original question statement ; All singers are
intelligent. #'ni.ersal positi.e >'"%.
According to our con.ersion table* '" can be con.erted into
particular positi.e #""% only. But this answer statement #II% is a
particular negati.e statement. 5ence this is also false.
@inal answer; #4% neither follows.
C!1-level
Same '"-'9 oncept but they pac$ 3-+ or more syllogism questions into one question to test
your speed* not :ust your understanding. for e&ample;
.emoQ: S"eet 1estin !**les (C!1)
gi.en question has fi.e statements followed by options containing three statements put together
in a specific order. hoose the option which indicates a .alid argument* where the third
statement is a conclusion drawn from the preceding two statements.
Question statements (C!1 %222)
a. Apples are not sweet
b. Some apples are sweet
c. All sweets are tasty
d. Some apples are not tasty
e. 9o apple is tasty
ans"er c#oices
). cea
2. bdc
3. cbd
+. eac
solution and a**roac#
we3.e to chec$ the gi.en options one by one.
7ption #i%. 2A. 1eaning we3.e to ta$e as our statement #I%* 2 as our Statement #II% and then
obser.e* if statement #A% can be concluded from and 2.
All sweets are tasty 'ni.ersal positi.e
2 9o apple is tasty. 'ni.ersal negati.e
AApples are not sweet 'ni.ersal negati.e
In the actual AT e&am* we cannot afford to waste time in actually con.erting all statements and
chec$ing them.
5ere is the fast approach
). three termsF6 yes
2. in standard formatF 9o. but we can con.ert second #'9% into another '9 and then combo rule
is '"B'96'9.
5ence this answer choice #2A% is correct.
@inal answer #i% 2A
.emoQ: 0or,in mot#er nurses (C!1)
question statement answer choices
a. 9o mother is a nurse.
b. Some 9urses li$e to wor$
c. 9o woman is prude
d. Some prude are also nurses
e. Some nurses are women
f. All women li$e to wor$
). AB2
2. 24
3. @2B
+. B2@
hec$ the answer choices one by one.
i. !B3
A #Statement I% 9o mother is a nurse. #'9%
B #Statement II% Some 9urses li$e to wor$
2 #onclusion% Some 9urses are women.
This is in.alid. Because Statement I and II ha.e three terms #1other* 9urse and wor$% while
gi.en conclusion statement adds fourth new term ,women-
1o.e to ne&t choice.
ii. C3.
Statement Type
#Statement I% 9o woman is prude 'ni.ersal negati.e
2 #Statement II% Some nurses are women "articular positi.e
4 #conclusion% Some prude are also nurses "articular positi.e
Guestion statements ha.e three termsF Hes #women* prude* nurses%
Are they in standard format #A to B then B to F% nope.
9o woman#B% is prude 'ni.ersal negati.e
Some nurses are women#B% "articular positi.e
change position of first and second statement.
). Some nurses#A% are women#B%
2. 9o woman#B% is prude#%
question statement type
). Some nurses#A% are women#B% "articular positi.e #""%
2. 9o woman#B% is prude#% 'ni.ersal negati.e #'9%
Apply the combo rules
""B'96FF
Chen 1r."" obser.es the universe .ia 9ASA telescope* his mood becomes particularly
negati.e or positi.e depending on the mood of uni.erse. 5ence ""B'96"9.#A to %
So legitimate conclusion is ,Some "rune arenot nurses-.
But hec$ the gi.en conclusion statement; ,Some prude are also nurses.- It is "articular
positi.e #""%.
But According to con.ersion table* "9 cannot be con.erted. So we cannot say that since
,Some prune are not nurses* that means some prunes are nursesI-
Therefore gi.en answer choice#ii% 24 is false because 4 cannot be concluded from
B2.
1o.e to the ne&t answer choice.
Actual thought process; three terms 6yes. Standard form6no. rearrange. But ""B'96"9* can3t
be con.erted to "". 5ence false.
iii.43B
Statement Type
@ #Statement I% All women li$e to wor$ 'ni.ersal positi.e '"
2 #Statement II% Some nurses are women "articular positi.e ""
B #conclusion% Some nurses li$e to wor$ "articular positi.e ""
three terms 6yes. Standard form6no. but no need to con.ert* :ust e&change position of statement
I and II.
Some nurses#A% are women#B% "articular positi.e ""
All women#B% li$e to wor$ #% 'ni.ersal positi.e '"
Apply combo rule* again same situation
Chen 1r."" obser.es the universe .ia 9ASA telescope* his mood becomes particularly positi.e
or negati.e depending on the mood of uni.erse. 5ence ""B'"6"".#A to %.
Some nurses#A% li$e to wor$#%. 4oneI This is same as the gi.en conclusion #B%
Therefore* final answer is #iii% @2B.
.emoQ: 5 6uestions in %7
This one is from AT-)OOO.
2ach of the gi.en question statement as three segments. hoose the alternati.e where third
segment of the statement can be logically be used using the both preceding two but not :ust from
one of them
Question statements
a. all dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures. Cater buffaloes are not dinosaurs. Cater buffaloes
are not prehistoric creatures
b. all politicians are fran$. 9o fran$ people are crocodiles. 9o crocodiles are politicians
c. no diamond is quart=. 9o opal is quart=. 4iamonds are opals.
d. All mon$eys li$e bananas. Some Joes li$e bananas. Some Joes are mon$eys.
!ns"er c#oice
i. 7nly
ii. 7nly B
iii. 7nly A and 4
i.. 7nly B and
!**roac#
. 4iamonds*
Guart=* 7pals.
Three terms yes. Standard format 69o.Both question statements are 'ni.ersal
negati.e. Ce can con.ert either of them* into '9 or "9. But in any case* both
question statements will remain negati.e. And Two negati.es6no conclusion.
So ,- is not possible. 5ence answer choice #i% and #i.% eliminated.
B. @ran$
politicians and
crocodiles
Already in three terms standard format.'"B'96si=e enlarged and becomes
'9.
So conclusion should be ,9o crocodile is politician- so this statement is
correct. 5ence answer choice #ii%.
@inal answer; #ii% only B.
The 2ndF
9o. Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost; :ust three more concepts before concluding the Two-
Statement Syllogism
S*ecial Conversions
<ecall that when question statements are not in standard format #A to B then B to %* in that case
we3.e to con.ert them according to con.ersion table. 5ere are some special cases.
Ki.en Guestion statement
on.ersion #all applicable to all gi.en question
statements%
Type
9one but "oliticians are honest.
9o one else but "oliticians are
honest.
7nly politicians are honest.
"oliticians alone are honest
). All honest#people% are politicians '"
). 9o non-politician is honest.
2. 9o honest #people% are non-politicians.
'9
). Some politicians are honest ""
Second concept;
Com*limentar( *airs
2arlier we saw there are fi.e no-conclusion combos
). '"3s politicians hate gi.ing particular statements #both positi.e and negati.e%. 2.g. they
donot re.eal their clear position on @4I in retail until the ))
th
hour.
2. 'nited 9ations hates negati.ity of any type. #both 'ni.ersal and particular%
3. "ritish 9andy hates e.erybody.
+. Two-negati.es6no conclusion.
N. Two particulars6no conclusion.
@or e&ample
Question statement ). Some "oliticians are male.2. Some males are honest.
onclusion ). Some "oliticians are honest.2. 9o "oliticians are honest.
!ns"er c#oice
a. 7nly ) follows
b. 7nly 2 follows
c. 2ither ) or 2 follows
d. 9either follows
Apply the standard operating procedure;
Three termsF hec$; yes
Are they in standard formatF A to B then B to F chec$. Hes
Then classify the statements
). Some "oliticians#A% are males#B% "articular positi.e.
2. Some males#B% are honest#% "articular positi.e.
@rom the gi.en rules* Two particulars 6 9o conclusionI
But please obser.e one of the answer choice #%6 2ither ) or 2 follows.
onsider these cases
Case$&
"oliticians 1ales honest
). Sardar "atel
). /al Bahadur Shastri
). <a:a
). 0almadi
). Sheila
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
3. <a:a
+. 0almadi
N. Bhagat Singh
P. handraSe$har A=ad
). Sardar "atel
2. /al Bahadur Shastri
3. Bhagat Singh
+. handraSe$har A=ad
N. Saro:ini 9aidu
P. 1other Teresa
In this caseQ); some politicians #Sardar and Shastri% are honest.
So ,conclusion #)% may be possible.-
Case$&
"oliticians 1ales honest
). <a:a
2. 0almadi
3. Sheila
). <a:a
2. 0almadi
3. Bhagat Singh
+. handraSe$har A=ad
). Bhagat Singh
2. handraSe$har A=ad
3. Saro:ini 9aidu
+. 1other Teresa
In this case* 9o politician is honest.
So ,conclusion #2% may be possible.-
Therefore answer becomes ,2ither ) or 2 follows-
Such syllogism-situations are called ,complementary-.
Hou3.e to chec$ following things* before thin$ing about ,complementary- cases.
). Two statements with three termsF Hes
2. Guestion statements are gi.en in standard format #A to B Then B to %. if not* then
rearrange or con.ert them.
3. lassify the statements #'"* '9* ""* "9%
+. Apply the rules. Ket the answer.
N. If Step Q+ gi.es ,9o conclusion- A94 one of the answer choice is in the format of
,2ither I or II follows-* only then chec$ for complemantary case.
C#ec,list: com*lementar( case
). Two answer choices ha.e same sub:ect and predicate.
Applicable 9ot applicable
). Some "oliticians are honest.2. 9o
"oliticians are honestBecause both ha.e
common sub:ect #politician% and common
predicate #honest%
). Some "oliticians are honest.2. 9o 5onest are
"oliticians.In first statement* sub:ect6"olitician but in
second statement* sub:ect6 5onest. 5ence
complemantary case not possible.
2%. The answer choice combo must be either of these three
Answer choice combo e&ample
'ttar "radesh #'"% B "ritish 9andy #"9%
). All "oliticians are honest.
2. Some "oliticians arenot honest
"" B "ritish 9andy #"9%
). Some "oliticians are honest.
2. Some "oliticians arenot honest
"" B 'nited 9ations #'9%
). Some "oliticians are honest.
2. 9o "oliticians are honest
Chen these two conditions are met* then answer would be ,2ither #I% or #II% follows.-
Priorit( order
Hou $now that when Guestion statements are not in standard format #A to B Then B to %* we
must con.ert them. But here is a thing to $eep in mind. onsider these statements
Guestion statements;
). All 4ogs are ats.
2. Some 4ogs are "igs.
ommon term or middle term is 4ogs. So that3s our ,B-.
). All 4ogs#B% are ats.
2. Some 4ogs#B% are "igs.
Ce can con.ert it .ia two routes
<oute Q) <oute Q2
Just con.ert the first statement.
). Some ats are dogs. #<ule;
'" to ""%
2. Some 4ogs are pigs.
Ce3ll re-order the statements. #that is interchange thee position
of both statements%
). Some dogs#B% are pigs
2. All 4ogs#B% are ats
9ow we3ll con.ert the first statement.
). Some pigs are 4ogs #B% #<ule; "" to ""%
2. All dogs #B% are cats.
Both routes are .alid.
9ow the question is* which route should be preferredF
The priority order is;
)% "articular positi.e #""% EE 2% 'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% EE 3% 'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"%
9ote; we3.e not included "articular 9egati.e #"9% in this order because "9 cannot be con.erted.
So according to this priority order ""E'9E'"* route Q2 is the more suitable approach. #although
such complications don3t usually arise in most of the questions%.
1ric,( Situations: Priorit( order
onsider this scenario
Guestion statements onclusion
). All women#B% are birds
2. Some women#B% are tree
). Some birds are tree
2. All trees are bird.
As you can see* the question statements are not in standard format #A to B then B to %.
So* which question statement to con.ertF
@irst the wrong approach.
C<
7
9
K
Since question statements are not in standard format #A to B then B to %* hence we3ll
con.ert first statement. #'" to ""%After con.ersion
). Some birds#A% are women #B%
2. Some women#B% are tree
Both question statements are particular* hence final answer69o conclusion. #please note; this
approach is wrong* because we3.e not followed the priority order%.
9ow the correct approach
7
<
<
2

T
The priority order for Statement con.ersion is ""E'9E'".1eaning* if there are two question
statements* and we3.e to con.ert one of them to ma$e it a standard format6E then we3ll
con.ert "articular positi.e statement first.
So in the gi.en case
). All women#B% are birds
2. Some women#B% are tree
on.ert second statement. #"" to ""%
). All women#B% are birds.
2. Some trees are women#B%.
9ow e&change positions of question statements
). Some trees are women#B%. #""%
2. All women#B% are birds. #'"%
9ow they3re in standard format* apply combo rule; ""B'"6"" #9asa telescope ruleI%
5ence conclusion is
Some trees are birds. #""%
Ce can also say that Some birds are trees. #"" to "" con.ersion%. Therefore answer is #)%
1oral of the story; on.ersion priority; ""E'9E'". 2specially when you3re getting ""B""6 no
conclusion after con.ersion.
1ric,( Situations: %-Statement Conclusion
Guestion statements onclusion
). All the flowers are lea.es.#B% #'"%
2. Some lea.es#B% are birds #""%
). Some birds are flowers
2. Some lea.es are flowers
Guestion statement contains only three terms6yes.
Are they in standard formatF #A To B then B to F% 6Hes.
Apply combo rules; '"B""69o conclusion because 'ttar "radesh3s politicians hate particular
statements.
But here3s the catch. 7bser.e the conclusion statements carefully
onclusion statement Thought process
). Some birds are
flowers
9ot possible because combo rule.
). Some lea.es
are flowers
first question statement says All flowers are lea.es. If you apply the
con.ersion rule '"-E""* thenAll flowers are lea.es6E Some lea.es are
flowers. 5ence this conclusion is correct* although it did not employ both
question statements.
1oral of the story; <ead terms #sub:ect-predicate% of conclusion statements.
Summar(
Chat to do when 2-statement syllogism question is gi.enF
). They must ha.e only three terms #A* B and %
2. Are the question statements in standard format #A to B then B to %F if no* then refer to
following con.ersion table. #important; priority order for con.ersion is ""E'9E'".%
Type !alid on.ersion
'ni.ersal "ositi.e #'"% 7nly ""
'ni.ersal 9egati.e #'9% "9 or '9
"articular "ositi.e #""% 7nly ""
"articular 9egati.e #"9% an3t do.
3. lassify the Guestion statement #'"* '9* ""* "9%
+. Apply the combo rules on Guestion statements.
No conclusion 8es conclusion
). '"3s politicians hate gi.ing particular
statements #both positi.e and
negati.e%. 2.g. they donot re.eal their
clear position on @4I in retail until the
))
th
hour. #'"B""?"9697%
2. 'nited 9ations hates negati.ity. #both
'ni.ersal and particular%
#'9B'9?"9697%
3. "ritish 9andy hates e.erybody. #first
statement is "9697* Irrespecti.e of
second statement.%
+. Two-negati.es6no conclusion.
N. Two particulars6no conclusion.
). If 'ttar "radesh meets 'ttar "radesh* then
its si=e doesn3t increase. #'"B'"6'"%
2. If 'ttar "radesh meets 'nited 9ations then
si=e increases and it becomes 'nited
9ations. #'"B'96'9%
3. 'nited 9ations Secretary Ban 0i 1oon is
in .ery positi.e mood. But he meets
another positi.e person* and his attitude is
totally re.ersed- he becomes particularly
negati.eI #re.ersed 6 to A%.
#'9B'"?""6"9%
+. Chen 1r."" obser.es the uni.erse .ia
9ASA telescope* his mood becomes
particularly positi.e or negati.e depending
on the mood of uni.erse.
#""B'"?'96""?"9%
N. #rarely required%; if no-conclusion and ,either or- gi.en in answer* then chec$ for
omplimentary case.
This concludes the discussion on 2 statement Syllogism question.
In later article* we3ll see the 3-statement syllogism. It is basically e&tention of the same '"-'9
method that we learned here. 5owe.er* to quic$ly sol.e 3-statements* first you must become a
master of 2-statement. So* practice as many sums as you can* from any of the following boo$s.