Syllogisms Broadly, you need to understand two types of arguments.

We have already come to see what arguments look like. Now it is time to comprehend some categories of arguments. Analyse this, (P1= Premise 1, P2= Premise 2, C= Conclusion) P1 All men are buffoons. P2 Ravi (poor chap) is a man. C Ravi is a buffoon.

This kind of argumentation is known as deductive reasoning. Here, the conclusion arrived at, is a logical necessity, which you will find me referring to henceforth as an LN. The structure of the deductive argumentation is simple. We picked a set, gave it a characteristic (P1), picked an element from the set (P2), and with certainty, arrived at the conclusion that the element shall show the same characteristic. P.S. I hope you understand that my sympathies with Ravi have nothing to do with the argument. Now, the second type, P1 Ravi is an engineer. P2 Ravi is a fool. C All engineers are fools. While many of you may express surprise, nay, even disdain for such argumentation, it is still deemed a valid form of argumentation. So much so, that we would not have had the evolutionary history if mankind had refused to allow room for such argumentation. Appalled? Do not

be. All knowledge has been attained and transferred through this form of reasoning for thousands of years now in the evolution of life. This form of argumentation is known as Inductive logic. Here, the conclusion arrived at is not an LN but a logical possibility (LP). The conclusion that we derived here may or may not be true. And hence we call it an LP. I hope you understand the structural difference between the two types of reasoning. Inductive reasoning suggests that if some (read one) elements of a set show a characteristic, others will too. In fact, you SHALL find yourself arguing many a time with exactly the same structure. Stereotypes, such as women cannot drive, engineers are an intelligent species, politicians are corrupt, people with work experience have a better chance of getting into a B-School etc. are born of the same category of argumentation. While it is easy to refute such an argument as having a conclusion that you do NOT agree with, do understand that it MAY just be true! It is just that we do not possess information about the rest of the elements of the set and hence cannot say for certainty whether the conclusion will be correct or incorrect. Also, do not be emotional with the variables- engineers, fools, men etc. They are just representative and should be deemed as Xs and Ys. All said and done, when you are attempting a question, you must always try to look for a logical necessity as an answer, not a logical possibility. We mark LP as an answer only if the answer choices do not HAVE a necessity answer choice in the first place. One more thing before we move on to the next topic. DO NOT include anything external to the premises in the conclusion. For example, if P1 All women are intelligent. P2 Sita is a woman.

C Sita is an intelligent woman. This is specious reasoning. Our P1 does not state intelligent women, but simply intelligent. Takeaways In questions, we are looking for LNs, not LPs. We shall mark LP as an answer choice only in the absence of an LN. Do not take the variables of the questions to heart, treat them as Xs and Ys. Do not add anything external to the premises in the conclusion.

There are four basic premises to understand in syllogisms. a) All X are/is Y. b) No X are/is Y. c) Some X are/is Y. d) Some X are/is not Y. Let us deal with each in totality. a) All X is/are Y. This statement comes under the universal positive category. But that is elementary and not worth keeping in mind. What you really need to understand in this statement is that the usage of is/are is not important; whatever verb appears here will be independent of interpretation. The simple translation of this statement is that all the elements of set X will also be elements of set Y.

Another important thing to note is that, even if the statement does not have the prefix all, (e.g. x is y) it will have the same interpretation. Let us also try and understand this with Venn diagrams.

The second diagram shows a possibility that exists, in that the two sets X and Y are overlapping. While solving questions, you should use the first diagram. And, as I have stated earlier, do not get emotionally involved in trying to picturise the verb. The trick is- find out the verb, then recognise the doer of the verb (i.e. the subject of the sentence) and put the subject in the inner circle, while the object occupies the outer circle. For example, All men are blue. Here, the verb is are, and the subject all men. Hence the set of men will be represented by the inner circle, and the set of blue by the outer circle. Sometimes, if one becomes paranoid about being able to picturise stuff, things can get tricky. For example, if the statement were monkeys have brains, one would be tempted to draw the outer circle to represent the monkeys. Do NOT be tricked by the verb. Follow the same rule that I have mentioned earlier. The verb here is have, the doer of which is monkeys. Hence, make the inner circle to represent monkeys and the outer to represent brains.

On a parting note, do remember The presence or absence of the prefix all does not matter. The statement shall still be treated as mentioned above. Hence all X is Y, is the same as X is Y. Put the subject of the sentence in the inner circle. For solving a question, use the first diagram. The second diagram is a possibility to be kept in mind for solving CR/ RC questions.

b) No X is/are Y. This is a rather simpler statement to understand. It means that no elements of set X are elements of set Y. Simply put, the elements of the two have nothing in common. These can be easily represented as disjoint sets, i.e. two circles, not touching each other anywhere.

However, there are some other important things to learn here. Please understand that this premise (which, incidentally, comes under the universal negative category) has some misrepresentations as well. Many people try to represent the opposite of all X is Y as all X is NOT y. Now, this is fallacious, since such a negation becomes dubious to interpret and hence ambiguous. Premises in logic cannot afford to be ambiguous, since it is they who set the stage for the conclusion to follow. You just have to try different emphasis points in this kind of negation to understand what I mean.

All engineers are not fools. (Implies that no engineer is a fool) All engineers are not fools. (Implies that only some of them are. J) Since it is semantics at play here, such a negation is considered illogical. Similarly, a negation of the nature Not all X are Y has comparable problems, and hence is not deemed a valid negation of All X are Y. Final takeaways The negative of All X is Y is No X is Y. Can be represented by disjoint sets. All X are not Y / Not all X are Y are invalid premises.

c) Some X are/ is Y. Unlike the universals we have been looking at so far, where it was either an all or none case, thereby justifying the usage of the word universal, we now shift our focus to particular premises. These premises have prefixes that look like- some, many, a lot of, most et al. Understand that these words have little representative or absolute value, until pitted against their respective whole numbers. Hence our comprehension of the same will have to be careful. Let us then agree to interpret these two statements by concurring that X. If some X are Y, then some Y must definitely be

The interpretation of the prefix some, many etc. will be AT LEAST ONE. If some X are Y, it does not imply that some X are then definitely NOT Y.

The first interpretation is fairly simple to understand. If some elements of set X are also elements of set Y, those same elements are both X and Y. Hence some elements of Y automatically become elements of set X. The second point, when elaborated, means that in logic, the prefix some in itself means nothing except at least one. Even if the prefix is a lot, many, most, several etc. our interpretation of the same shall remain at least one. Now, for the third point, some logic books state that if the premise states some X are y, then it definitely means that some X are NOT Y. This is bad reasoning. Just as we saw in inductive reasoning erstwhile, if some elements of a set do show a certain trait, then we cannot for certainty say EITHER that the rest will not show the same trait OR that they will. Hence, to conclude from Some X are Y, as a necessity, that Some X are not Y, is simply not correct. And henceforth you and I shall not indulge in such fallacies. Time for a Venn interpretation. The first diagram that I have presented below is what we shall use for solving questions. The rest are just indicative of possibilities that may exist, and with which we must familiarise ourselves, for they will help us understand things better when we finally arrive at long CR questions.

In this diagram the shaded portion represents the area in which our at least one X and at least one Y lie. This is the diagram we shall use for solving questions.

Here, the portion of X that coincides with the portion of Y is our area of concern. Also, please understand that one line of argument may state that here arent all Ys, Xs too? To this, a logical response is that our premise concerns itself with some of the Xs being Ys, not Ys being Xs. In the process, if all Ys turn out to be Xs, it is just a possibility, and of course not our primary concern. We had started with trying to prove that at least one X ought to be Y, and the diagram does justice to that. (Remember, we are dealing with all the possibilities here.)

Here again, one might point out that all of the Xs are Ys. However, by now, you and I understand that we had set out to prove that at least one X should be Y, and in the process if all Xs DO happen to be Ys, so be it. Our one X is still safely within Set Y, and our diagram, yet again, does full justice to that.

Well, if you understood the previous diagram, you would find it easy enough to understand that this too is a possibility that exists. And again, our one X is still ensconced firmly within Set Y. Synopsis X. The interpretation of the prefix some, many etc. will be AT LEAST ONE. If some X are Y, it does not imply that some X are then definitely NOT Y. For solving a question, we shall use the first diagram. If some X are Y, then some Y must definitely be

d) Some X are/is not Y. This statement has several interpretations across the globe. But we shall treat it as a logically inconsistent premise. Although the statement Some X are not Y CAN hold true as a conclusion, it falls flat as a premise. (Hope you remember the distinction between premises and conclusion well enough by now!!) For instance, let us try with P1 Some boys are not mature.

Immediately with this premise you will have to go with three possible diagrams simultaneously, i.e.

P2 Some mature are fools/ All matures are fools/ No mature is a fool. You understand that any of these three premises will have different impacts on the three possible diagrams that we have made. With such a scenario we shall NOT be able to arrive at a sustainable conclusion at the third stage. In syllogisms, as you must have noticed earlier, we do arrive at a conclusion at the third stage. Hence, this statement, we shall treat as an illogical premise. However, this a conclusion. For instance, P1 Some buckets are trees. statement DOES have validity as

P2 No tree is a fool

Now, in all of the three possible diagrams you can see that as an LN conclusion, we can safely say that, Some buckets are not fools. (i.e. the buckets that lie in intersection with trees.) Takeaways Some X are/is not Y is a logically inconsistent premise Some X are/is not Y has an absolutely logical existence as a conclusion.

Finally, Only X are/is Y. This is the only remaining premise we need to get hold of, so far as syllogisms are concerned. To begin with, if you encounter a statement such as Only X are Y, quickly convert it into All Y are X. The diagram should be simple now- Y inside, X outside. For solving a question, this much of dope should be enough.

For the sceptics, however, an explanation is just what the doctor ordered! So here we go! Let us see if the formula works or not. P1 Only boys wear trousers. If this be our premise, isnt it easy to figure out that the moment I see someone wearing a pair of trousers, without even looking further, I should be safely able to conclude that the person is a boy? What I mean is that since the premise explicitly states that only boys can wear trousers, then nobody else can wear them. Therefore if someone is wearing trousers, the person OUGHT to be a boy, else our premise falls. Hence, is it not easy to figure out that All trousers can be worn by boys only? Well, youve got it now! If, only boys wear trousers, then all trousers are worn by boys! Simple!

Takeaway Convert only X are Y to All Y are X, and then work with what you have learnt from the all prefix statements, i.e. make Y the inner circle and X the outer circle.

One final word - While solving questions in syllogisms, do remember that the conclusion should be derived

using both of the previous two premises, premise alone. For example, 1. 2. All babies are black. My baby is cute.

and not one

Conclusion- My baby is black. This is incorrect since the conclusion can be derived using the first premise itself. Logical Consistency- This topic suggests that based upon agreed premises we need to be able to keep our further interpretations consistent with what we have agreed upon erstwhile. Else either the premises were faulty or we are not being consistent with our interpretations. I am reminded here of the classic method through which Socrates used to find flaws with generally formed opinions simply by challenging the flaws of the interpretation. He could rip his opponents off even if they outnumbered him 5 to 1. In Logical consistency we basically deal with three broad premises. These are: a) The EITHER/OR Premise b) The IF Premise, and, c) The ONLY IF Premise a) Either/Or Premises The either/or premise is a condition in which the doer is restricted to only one choice of action, i.e. if he performs one of the two offered actions, he CANNOT perform the other. For e.g. if our premise be Ravi either runs or sleeps, then there are four propositions/questions that can be asked on the basis of the information provided by the premise. These propositions are-

i) What can be said if Ravi is running? ii) What can be said if Ravi is not running? iii) What can be said if Ravi is sleeping? iv) What can be said if Ravi is not sleeping? The answers, being logically consistent with the premise, are i) Ravi is NOT sleeping. (Since he can perform only one of these actions, and he IS performing one of them, then, being logically consistent, he CANNOT perform the other. Ergo, we have a Necessity answer here. **Refer to my previous article for Necessity and Possibility related queries. ii) Nothing can be said with necessity/'certainty'. (He may choose to sleep, or he may not. The premise restricts the doer with the clause that he can perform only one action, and does not inform us what course of action can be taken if he is NOT performing one of the actions. Hence we have a Possibility answer here, i.e. he may/may not sleep.) On similar lines, therefore, the answers to questions iii and iv areiii) Ravi is not running. (Necessity) iv) He may/may not run. (Possibility) So far so good. However, there is a corollary to the either/or premise as well. Lets deal with it and finish our business with this first premise. Corollary to the either/or premise: If the premise states that Ravi must either sleep or run, then the answers to the four questions asked

earlier will ALL turn into necessities, i.e. the new answers are i) Ravi is not sleeping. (Necessity) ii) Ravi is sleeping. (Necessity) iii) Ravi is not running. (Necessity) iv) Ravi is running. (Necessity) I hope the difference between the two cases is sufficiently clear. The corollary uses the word must, thereby leaving no option for the doer but to perform one of these actions mandatorily. Now try your luck with the diamond ring!! Takeaways The typical either/or case leaves us with two necessities and two possibilities. The inclusion of must/has to etc. indicates that all the answers will be necessities.

b) The IF premise In the world of logic, if is synonymous with when, whenever, every time and each time. Hence if the premise reads Ravi runs if he falls, it can be read as Ravi runs every time/ each time/ when/ whenever he falls. And similarly, if the premise reads Ravi runs every time he falls, it can be treated as Ravi runs if/when/ whenever/ every time/ each time he falls, and so on Now, since logic creates confusion in minds by playing around with variables, it can be pretty tricky to understand the implications at times, especially so, when the premise states something that is contrary to our common perceptions. For instance, let us consider

the following premiseHe does not breathe if he does not die. As in the either/or case, four questions can be asked again vis--vis the implications of the premise. These arei) What can be said if he breathes? ii) What can be said if he does not breathe? iii) What can be said if he dies? iv) What can be said if he does not die? Take a few seconds to find the answers on your own. If you are done, I might venture to guess that some of the answers would have troubled your reasoning powers. So let me try to make life easier for you. The premise that we have been presented with beats our perception of the earthly world. So let us understand by a more earthly example. For instance, Water stirs if I throw a stone into it. This is a pretty simple premise and does not pose any challenges to our intellectual quotient. (Hopefully!!) So let us ask the four questions again. i) What can be said if I throw a stone? ii) What can be said if I do not throw a stone? iii) What can be said if water stirs? and, iv) What can be said if water does not stir? Answers-

i) Water stirs. (Necessity. Since our premise has already stated that water has to stir every time I throw a stone.) ii) Water may/may not stir. (Possibility. Since we do not know whether some other factors might not have contributed to its stirring. As I often say in class Bhains bhi to ghuss sakti hai paani mein!!!) iii) I may/may not have thrown a stone. (Possibility. On lines similar to the one I offered in the previous answer call it The Bhains Factor, if you like!!) iv) I have NOT thrown a stone. (Necessity. If water is not stirring, at least this much is certain that my throwing stone action has not been performed.) So here we are with two necessity answers and two possibility answers. And now that you have understood this one premise, you can apply it to virtually ANY question. In fact now it has become a sort of mathematical formula for us. But, the most important part to remember in this formula is thatwhatever is immediately to the right side of if/when/whenever/every time etc. will be treated as throw stone, and the rest as water stirs. Before we move any further, try to visualise completely the four answers that we have arrived at with this formula of ours. Once internalised, it will help us solve questions at rocket-speed! Now let us see the missile in action. Our previous premise was- He does not breathe if he

does not die. Now, by applying the formula we can read this premise asHe does not breathe if he does not die. Water stirs throw stone So

Does not breathe = Water stirs Breathes = Water doesnt stir And, Does stone not die ANNEXURE = Throw

Dies = Do not throw stone We need to remember this relationship. After a couple of questions this becomes automatic though. He does not breathe if he does not die. Water stirs throw stone i) What can be said if he breathes? ii) What can be said if he does not breathe? iii) What can be said if he dies? iv) What can be said if he does not die? PLEASE GO THROUGH THE ANSWERS EXPLANATIONS REALLY SLOWLY!!!! So the answers to the questions areAND

i) What can be said if he breathes? i) He dies. (Simple! Refer to the annexure. Since does not breathe= water stirs, then breathes = water does notstir. And if water does not stir, we havent thrown a stone. Thus our answer is did not throw stone. And since throw stone= does not die, then the opposite i.e. do not throw stone will mean dies. ) ii) What can be said if he does not breathe? ii) He may/may not die. (Refer to the annexure. Again, does not breathe = water stirs. And, if water stirs, then the stone may/may not have been thrown- remember the Bhains Factor?? And, hence he may/may not die.) iii) What can be said if he dies? iii) He may/may not breathe. (Refer to the annexure. Now, since does not die= throw stone, therefore Dies= do not throw stone. And thus water may/may not stir which means he may/may not breathe. Another possibility.) iv) What can be said if he does not die? iv) He does not breathe. (Necessity. Refer to the annexure. Simple! Does not die= throw stone, and throw stone means water has to stir. And consequently, since water stirs = does not breathe, thus a necessity answer!) I INSIST THAT YOU INTERNALISE THE ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS ONCE AGAIN! I REPEAT THIS, SINCE IN THE FIRST GO IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE HECTIC. TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME AND BE PATIENT. ONCE YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD EVEN ONE ANSWER, YOU SHALL BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THE REST. The question that we just worked our way around with is possibly one of the most difficult kind. And if you have understood this question, I promise you the rest of the

questions will be a cakewalk!! Once you have mastered the art of reading a throw stone and water stirs in every IF Premise- mark my words- you can solve questions in span of flat 10 seconds!! Let us try with our promise wallah premise!! If you give me a diamond ring throw stone diamond ring ka

I will marry you! water stirs

***(This time, we have the first part of the premise immediately close to IF, and hence we have converted this portion into throw stone and the rest into water stirs) So now, i) If I give a ring = throw stone// Throw stone = water stirs// water stirs= she will marry me!! (Necessity!! Hurrah!!) ii) If I do not give a ring = did not throw stone = water may/may not stir = may/may not marry me!! (Possibility exists!! One more reason to smile yet!!) iii) If she marries me=water stirs=may/ may not throw stone=may/may not give diamond. (Men can be sly too!!) iv) If she does not marry me=water doesnt stir=didnt throw stone=I didnt give the ring. (Necessity!!) Now take a stock of the situation and decide whether the investment in diamond is worth it or not!![Especially when the situation involves the fairer gender!!] On a serious note, some of the answers may befuddle

you, but if we are to be logically consistent, then every case of IF premise should yield the same results, and though some may sound absurd, remember, we play along with variables in logic. And sometimes these variables can play funny tricks! In my Syllogisms chapter, therefore, I had invested three or four sentences in delivering the importance of not getting emotional with the variables. Takeaways The IF Premise is synonymous with when/whenever/every time and each time premises. Do not be troubled by the variables of the question. Apply the throw stone, water stirs theorem. What immediately follows If, When etc. is throw stone and the rest of the portion is water stirs.

The Only If Premise Just as we saw that the IF premise is synonymous with when, whenever etc., so too our Only If premise is synonymous with Only When and Not Unless. Therefore, I sleep only if I am tired. = I sleep only when I am tired. = I do not sleep unless I am tired. All the three premises will receive the same treatment. And, just as we developed a universally consistent theorem with the IF premise, so shall we develop a simple theorem for the Only If premises. And our theorem is going to be something that all of us will be

able to understand. (Again, hopefully!!) Consider the following premiseI shall get into IIT only if I write JEE. Hope all of you get at least this one!! So now, i) If I get into IIT then, I must have written JEE. (Necessity. Since our premise states categorically that this is the only way in which I could have reached the IIT) ii) If I do not get into IIT, I may/may not have written JEE. (i.e. I may have written JEE but not succeeded, or I may not have written it at all, in which case again I cannot get into IIT. Our premise states that the only way to get into IIT is by writing JEE. But it does not state that if I write JEE I will necessarily get into the IIT. So we have a possibility answer here.) iii) If I write JEE then, I may/may not get into IIT. (Again a possibility. We can argue on the same lines as we did in the previous argument.) iv) If I do not write JEE then, I can not go to IIT. (Necessity answer. Since the premise states that the only way to get into IIT is to write JEE, then if we do not follow the requirement, we cannot get into the IIT.) Once again, I would suggest that you slowly review and internalise the answers. Now, the important thing to remember, henceforth, is that whatever comes immediately after only if will be treated as write JEE, and the rest will be get into IIT.

If you observe carefully, the possibility answers of the if premise become the necessity answers in the only if premise. But that is irrelevant from the students point of view. Just remember that for the if premise we use the throw stone/ water stirs theorem, and for the only if premises we use the IIT/JEE theorem. Let us try this theorem on a question. Our premise isHe doe not fall unless he runs. First of all, since it is a not unless statement, let us convert it into only if statement; it is easier to figure out positive statements. So now our question readsHe falls only if he runs. Time for conversion into IIT/JEE Model. He falls Get into IIT Now, only if he runs. write JEE

He falls = Gets into He does not fall = Does not get into IIT. And, He runs = Writes JEE

IIT

ANNEXURE Does not run = Does not write JEE The questions are: i) What can be said if he runs? (Read writes JEE) ii) What can be said if he does not run? (Read does not

write JEE) iii) What can be said if he falls? (Read gets into IIT) iv) What can be said if he does not fall? (Read does not get into IIT) Answers: i) He may/may not have fallen. (Possibility. Refer to the annexure. He runs=he writes JEE, and if he writes JEE, he may/may not get into IIT, hence finally, he may/may not fall.) ii) He does not fall. (Necessity. Refer to the annexure. Does not run=does not write JEE, and if he does not write JEE, then he does not get into IIT. And, does not get into IIT= He does not fall.) iii) He runs. (Necessity. Refer to the annexure. He falls=gets into IIT, which means he must have written JEE. And write JEE=he runs.) iv) He may/may not have run. (Possibility. Refer to the annexure. Does not fall=does not get into IIT. And, if he does not get into IIT he may/may not have written JEE, hence the answer turns out to be a possibility.) Let us try the only if condition on our water stirs problem and see what we get when we convert an if premise into an only if premise. I am doing this not to confuse you, but to illustrate that both the premises have different impacts on deriving consistent conclusions. And therefore, we must treat if cases with a different theorem and only if cases with a different one. In our case, we have decided to treat the if cases with water stirs/throw stone theorem, and the only if

cases with IIT/JEE theorem. So what happens when we face a premise such asWater stirs only if I throw a stone into it. You will presently see that while it was mandatory for water to stir if we threw a stone into it, once we have converted it to only if, it may refuse to stir despite my throwing stone into it!! Dont believe me?? See for yourself!! Time for conversion into IIT/JEE model since it is an only if premise. Water stirs only if I throw a stone into it. get into IIT write JEE Now, Water stirs = Got into IIT Water does not stir = Did not get into IIT And, Threw a stone = Wrote JEE Did not throw stone = Did not write JEE The questions are i) What can be said if water stirs? ii) What can be said if water does not stir? iii) What can be said if I throw a stone? iv) What can be said if I do not throw a stone? Answers: i) I threw a stone. (Necessity. Since water stirs=got into IIT, and got into IIT means I must have written JEE, and also, Wrote

JEE=Threw a stone, therefore we have arrived at a necessity conclusion.) You can also try it through the following conversion mechanism: If water stirs (Question)=got into IIT=wrote JEE =Threw a stone (Answer). (Necessity) ii) I may/may not throw stone. (Possibility. Since water does not stir=did not get into IIT, and did not get into IIT means we may/may not have written JEE, hence the answer must be a possibility.) Or you could try this oneWater does not stir (Question)=did not get into IIT=may/may not have written JEE=May/may not have thrown stone (Answer). (Possibility) iii) Water may/may not stir. (Possibility. Since throw stone=wrote JEE, and wrote JEE means I may/may not get into IIT, the answer has to be a possibility.) { Had told you so earlier!!}

Or, If I throw a stone (Question)=wrote JEE=may/may not get into IIT=Water may/may not stir (Answer). (Possibility) iv) Water does not stir. (Necessity. Since do not throw stone=did not write JEE, and if I do not write JEE then I cannot get into IIT, and also, did not get into IIT=water does not stir, therefore we arrive at another necessity conclusion.) Or, Do not throw stone (Question)=did not write JEE=did not get into IIT=Water does not stir (Answer). (Necessity)

Now try it on the diamond ring premise and be surprised by the results!! ;) Takeaways The only if premise is synonymous with only when and not unless premises. Only If needs a separate theorem, since it yields different possibilities and necessities, when compared with the If premise. Whatever immediately follows only if/when should be converted into write JEE and the rest should be treated as get into IIT. If it is a not unless statement, convert it first into only if. It helps.

The purpose of my writing this piece is to simplify things for the future at the cost of making the presentthoda sa inconvenient. The idea is pretty generic though- If you understand even one question thoroughly, you can safely treat the rest of the questions using the same concept. I want all of you to have 100% accuracy in syllogism and logical consistency now onwards! Although such questions have faded in CAT nowadays, they grab center-stage in exams such as SNAP, JMET, GMAT etc. These basics help us find the truer meanings of statements made in real life events. AND, these basics go a long way in handling Critical Reasoning and RC questions. Now it is time for you to attempt some questions. Here they are Directions: Each question provides a basic premise. There are four statements, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, that follow the premise. The options are combinations of two statements from 1 to 4. Choose the option in which

the first statement leads to the second as a necessity. 1. Jayantika sleeps when she wakes up. 1. Jayantika is sleeping 2. Jayantika wakes up. 3. Jayantika is not sleeping. 4. Jayantika does not wake up.

A. 1 and 4 B. 3 and 4 C. 3 and 2 D. 2 and 3 E. 2 and 4

2. The ground gets wet only if it rains. 1.The ground is wet. 2. It did not rain. 3. It rained. & Reply Ratings: 5 / 5 Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Wednesday, 8 June 2011,

04:48 PM Here are the questions. Please ignore what's left incomplete in the post. 1. Jayantika sleeps when she wakes up.

1. Jayantika is 2. Jayantika wakes 3. Jayantika is not sleeping. 4. Jayantika does not wake up. A. B. C. D. E. 2. The 1 3 3 2 2 ground is gets wet and and and and and only not is 4 and and and and only if was beat and he not if 4

sleeping. up.

4 2 3 4 it rains. rain. wet. 2 4 4 1 beats Vivek. happy.

1.The 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E.

ground It It The 1

wet. did rained. ground and

3 2 3 4 feels happy

3.Salman 1. 2. 3. 4. A. Salman

beat Vivek. Salman Salman Did not Salman was 3

Vivek. not happy. 4

B. C. D. E.

4 1 3 1

and and and and

3 3 2 2

4.Kumar feels unhappy if the students are nonserious. 1. 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E. Kumar does Kumar Students are Students 4 1 3 3 1 not feel feels serious. are and and and and and unhappy. unhappy. non-serious. 1 3 1 2 2

5. The rocket is launched when the button is pressed. 1. 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E. The button was pressed. The button was not pressed. The rocket was launched. The rocket was not launched. 1 3 3 2 1 and and and and and 4 3 2 4 4

6. Saif drinks milk each time he goes to the lavatory. 1. Saif went to the lavatory. 2. Saif drank 3. Saif did not go to the lavatory. milk.

4. A. B. C. D. E. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E. If

Saif

did 4 2 3 2 1

not

drink and and and and and

milk. 3 1 4 3 4 exclaims. exclaim. Rakhi. Rakhi. 2 2 4 3

Mika

looks

at

Rakhi,

Rakhi

Rakhi exclaimed. Rakhi did not Mika did not look at Mika looked at 4 3 1 2 1 and 3 and and and and

8. Dhawal's motorcycle crashes only if he crosses LSR. 1. Dhawal crossed LSR. 2. Dhawal did not cross LSR. 3. Dhawal's motorcycle crashed. 4. Dhawal's motorcycle did not crash. A. B. C. D. E. 1 2 and 2 1 and and 2 and and 4 4 3 3

9. He does not eat only when he does not feel hungry. 1. He ate.

2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E.

He He He did 1 4 4 3 2

did felt not

not feel and and and and and

eat. hungry. hungry. 3 2 1 1 3

10. Sanjeev does not run only if he is not chased by a bull. 1. 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. E. Sanjeev ran. Sanjeev did not run. Sanjeev was not chased by Sanjeev was chased by a 4 2 4 3 2 and and and and and

bull. bull. 2 1 1 4 4

Show parent | Reply Ratings: 5 / 5 (4) Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by nakul kothari - Thursday, 9 June 2011, 01:45 AM Nice article sir.. Here are my answers1- b 2- c 3- a

4- b 5- a 6- a 7- d 8- d 9- d 10- c Show parent | Reply Ratings: 5 / 5 Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by ravi teja - Thursday, 9 June 2011, 03:18 PM Good article sir.... These are my answers:1- b 2- c 3- a 4- b 5- a 6- a 7- d 8- d 9- d 10- c Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by jigyasa tiwari - Saturday, 11 June 2011, 09:01 PM i never went through lr lyk dis..awesme wrk sir..ma

answers r.. 1.b 2.c 3.a 4.b 5.a 6.a 7.d 8.d 9.d 10.c Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by GAURAV Jain - Tuesday, 14 June 2011, 06:19 PM Thanks sir for such a nice article. My answers are 1.B 2.C 3.A 4.B 5.A 6.A 7.D 8.D 9.D 10.C Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams

by abrahim shah - Saturday, 18 June 2011, 01:15 AM My answers are:1- B 2- C 3- A 4- B 5- A 6- A 7- D 8- D 9- D 10-C Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Praveen Kumar - Saturday, 18 June 2011, 07:50 PM My answers are: 1)b 2)c 3)a 4)b 5)a 6)a 7)d 8)d 9)d 10)c Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Nikhil Sharma - Tuesday, 21 June 2011, 12:04 AM What a brilliant article. My answers : 1.B 2.C 3.A 4.B 5.A 6.A 7.B 8.D 9.D 10.C Looking forward to seeing the answers soon ! Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by sankalp saxena - Tuesday, 21 June 2011, 07:29 PM As usual awesome sir!!! Waise sir, what happened to that India winning against zimbabwe example.. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams

by gaurav midha - Friday, 24 June 2011, 12:11 AM Sir Ji jhakaass article ... My answers are:1b 2c 3a 4b 5a 6a 7d 8d 9d 10 c Jhaanpana tussi gr8 ho, tofhu kabul karo...

expecting more such articles...thanks a lot... Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by gaurav midha - Sunday, 26 June 2011, 06:50 PM Hello Abhishek Sir, I have a doubt, please help me. Is there any difference between two sentences:1) P2 has to selected only if P3 has been selected. 2) P2 is selected only if P3 is selected.

Looking for a reply. Thanks Gaurav Show parent | Reply Ratings: 0 / 5 Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by deepak sharma - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 08:14 AM Sir how to go for this one ... Either i get what I am worth or I quit. A) I quit. B) I got what I am worth. C) I did not quit. D) I did not get what I am worth. 1. CB 2. AD 3. DA 4. BC and AD 5. DA and CB Is this something like : "I will quit if I do not get what I am worth." PPL please answer with some reasons also. It would be helpful. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other B-

School Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 02:58 PM Good job almost ALL of you!!! Here are the answers: 1. B 2. C 3. A 4. B 5. A 6. A 7. D 8. D 9. D 10. C Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 02:59 PM India just won the World Cup Nikhil!! Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 03:27 PM

Refer to the article Deepak, where I have dealt with the either/or cases. These cases are different from the if cases/ only if cases. Here is the solution : If If If If I I I I get = I do not quit. (Necessity) do not get = I may/may not quit. (Possibility) quit = I did not get...(Necessity) did not quit = I may/may not quit. (Possibility)

Hope it helps. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 03:31 PM Only the language part is different Gaurav. Both the premises yield the same necessities and possibilities. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kaushik Ghosh - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 04:07 PM Its good but have I make it large........... Here are my answers1- b 2- c 3- a

4- b 5- a 6- a 7- d 8- d 9- d 10- c Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by ritesh dahiya - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 05:48 PM my answer of logical consistency..... 1. (b) 2. (c) 3. (a) 4. (b) 5. (a) 6. (a) 7. (d) 8. (d) 9. (d) 10. (c) Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by gaurav midha - Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 08:26 PM thanks a lot Sir ji.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by lateef syed - Monday, 4 July 2011, 04:50 PM thanx kumar sir for this brilliant article....with ur articles my hope of clearing CAT remains alive. Sir if u can write articles on the following topics or if u had already written then plz give me links to these articles, it will help me in the long run.i m scared of these topics:1. Probability. 2.lograthims 3.equations(quadratic and simultaneous) 4.percentages and profit/loss 5.inequations. Thanx a lot syed lateef hope u wll find time to reply. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by lateef syed - Monday, 4 July 2011, 04:51 PM thanx kumar sir for this brilliant article....with ur articles my hope of clearing CAT remains alive. Sir if u can write articles on the following topics or if u had already written then plz give me links to these articles, it will help me in the long run.i m scared of these topics:-

1. Probability. 2.lograthims 3.equations(quadratic and simultaneous) 4.percentages and profit/loss 5.inequations. Thanx a lot syed lateef hope u wll find time to reply. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by hari shashvat - Tuesday, 12 July 2011, 11:05 AM in question 3 the answer could be both (a) and (e). similarly for question 9 the answer can also be (b) along with (d) Please comment! Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Kumar Abhishek - Tuesday, 12 July 2011, 10:38 PM Read the article carefully Hari. It is precisely to take care of such fallacious arguments that I have written the article. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by vishal singh - Thursday, 14 July 2011, 01:05 PM Thank you sir for this excellent article....I have never expected that 'if' and 'only if' are so different and have so much impact on the deduction of the premises. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Ashish Tripathi - Monday, 25 July 2011, 04:01 PM Hello Sir, in question 9, if you convert the premise as 'He eats only if he feels hungry', then the right answer comes as option A (He ate indicates necessarily he was hungry). Please help! Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by Nik Kumar - Saturday, 30 July 2011, 03:29 AM i also agree with Ashish. option A is also a possible answer. Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams

by Amit Dixit - Tuesday, 9 August 2011, 11:58 PM 1-b 2-c 3-c 4-a 5-a 6-c 7-d 8-d 9-d 10-c Show parent | Reply

Re: Logical Consistency for CAT & other BSchool Exams by akhilesh agarwal - Friday, 12 August 2011, 01:02 PM Hi Ashish, He does not eat only if he is not hungry is not the same as He eats only if he is hungry

Read the article carefully ... I will explain it if you still dont get it Try to solve it as it is given in the article.

A Small note: I have said that i do not eat only when i am not hungry

Does that means I would eat only if i am Hungry ?? Can i not eat when i am not Hungry ... ??

PS: Thanks TG sir,mam and Abhishek Sir for all there valuable Posts they have always helped me a lot in my prep. Show parent | Reply