Question:
Consider the following two statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements.
Statements: All lawyers are extrovert. Some wise men are extrovert.
Conclusions:
(a) All lawyers are wise men.
(b) All wise men are lawyers.
(c) Some extrovert are wise men.
(d) All extrovert are lawyers.
Consider the following two statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements.
Statements: All lawyers are extrovert. Some wise men are extrovert.
Conclusions:
(a) All lawyers are wise men.
(b) All wise men are lawyers.
(c) Some extrovert are wise men.
(d) All extrovert are lawyers.
Statements: All lawyers are extrovert. Some wise men are extrovert.
Conclusions:
(a) All lawyers are wise men.
(b) All wise men are lawyers.
(c) Some extrovert are wise men.
(d) All extrovert are lawyers.
Show Hint
A "some" statement can always be reversed (some A are B implies some B are A), but an "all" statement can never be fully reversed.
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Only (a) follows
- Only (b) and (c) follow
- Only (a) and (c) follow
- Only (c) follows
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We are given two statements about lawyers, extroverts and wise men, and we must decide which of four proposed conclusions logically follows using the rules of syllogism.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
A universal statement like "All A are B" places the whole of A inside B, and it cannot be flipped into "All B are A." A particular statement like "Some A are B" means A and B share some common region, and this sharing works both ways, so "Some A are B" always allows us to say "Some B are A." This rule is called conversion, and it is the one certain inference we can draw from a particular statement.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Statement 1: "All lawyers are extrovert" puts the entire set of lawyers inside the set of extroverts.
Statement 2: "Some wise men are extrovert" means the set of wise men overlaps with the set of extroverts, at least partly.
Check (a) "All lawyers are wise men": statement 1 only places lawyers inside extroverts, it says nothing about lawyers overlapping wise men, so this does not follow.
Check (b) "All wise men are lawyers": nothing in either statement connects the whole class of wise men to lawyers, so this does not follow.
Check (c) "Some extrovert are wise men": by the conversion rule, "Some wise men are extrovert" directly gives "Some extrovert are wise men," so this follows with certainty.
Check (d) "All extrovert are lawyers": this wrongly reverses the universal statement 1 into another universal claim; only "some extrovert are lawyers" would be valid, never "all," so this does not follow.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Only conclusion (c) follows with certainty, so the answer is option (D).
\[ \boxed{\text{Only (c) follows}} \]
We are given two statements about lawyers, extroverts and wise men, and we must decide which of four proposed conclusions logically follows using the rules of syllogism.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
A universal statement like "All A are B" places the whole of A inside B, and it cannot be flipped into "All B are A." A particular statement like "Some A are B" means A and B share some common region, and this sharing works both ways, so "Some A are B" always allows us to say "Some B are A." This rule is called conversion, and it is the one certain inference we can draw from a particular statement.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Statement 1: "All lawyers are extrovert" puts the entire set of lawyers inside the set of extroverts.
Statement 2: "Some wise men are extrovert" means the set of wise men overlaps with the set of extroverts, at least partly.
Check (a) "All lawyers are wise men": statement 1 only places lawyers inside extroverts, it says nothing about lawyers overlapping wise men, so this does not follow.
Check (b) "All wise men are lawyers": nothing in either statement connects the whole class of wise men to lawyers, so this does not follow.
Check (c) "Some extrovert are wise men": by the conversion rule, "Some wise men are extrovert" directly gives "Some extrovert are wise men," so this follows with certainty.
Check (d) "All extrovert are lawyers": this wrongly reverses the universal statement 1 into another universal claim; only "some extrovert are lawyers" would be valid, never "all," so this does not follow.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Only conclusion (c) follows with certainty, so the answer is option (D).
\[ \boxed{\text{Only (c) follows}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top SNAP Analytical Reasoning Questions
Top SNAP Syllogisms Questions
- Consider the following two statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements.
Statements: All lawyers are extrovert. Some wise men are extrovert.
Conclusions:
(a) All lawyers are wise men.
(b) All wise men are lawyers.
(c) Some extrovert are wise men.
(d) All extrovert are lawyers. - In the following question two statements are followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Assume the two statements are true even if they are at variance with commonly known facts. Then pick the correct answer from the choices given below.
Statements: Some doctors are fools. Joshi is a doctor.
Conclusions: I. Joshi is a fool.
II. Some fools are doctors. - In each of the questions below, two statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Consider the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, and decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements.
Statements: All bulbs are birds. Some birds are butterflies.
Conclusions:
I. All butterflies are bulbs.
II. Some bulbs are butterflies. - In each of the questions below, two statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Consider the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, and decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements.
Statements: No coin is a dollar. Red token is a coin.
Conclusions:
I. Red token is not a dollar.
II. Red token may not be a dollar.
Top SNAP Questions
- In a retail outlet, the average revenue was Rs.10,000 per day over a 30 day period. During this period, the average revenue on weekends (total 8 days) was Rs. 20,000 per day. What was the average daily revenue on weekdays?
- Two different prime numbers X and Y, both are greater than 2, then which of the following must be true?
- It takes 6 hours for pump A, used alone, to fill a tank of water. Pump B alone takes 8 hours to fill the same tank. A, B and another pump C all together fill the tank in 2 hours. How long would pump C take, used alone, to fill the tank?
- A swimming pool can be filled by pipe A in 3 hours and by pipe B in 6 hours, each pump working on its own. At 9 am, pump A is started. At what time will the swimming pool be filled if pump B is started at 10 am?
- The sum of prime numbers that are greater than 60, but less than 70 is :
View More Questions