Question

Given statements:
1. All human beings need education.
2. All teachers need training.
3. Education is provided by the teachers.
4. X is a teacher.
5. X needs training.
6. Students are future of a nation.
The set of statements is: 
 

• A. 1, 2, 5
• B. 2, 3, 4
• C. 2, 4, 5
• D. 4, 5, 6

Hint:

When identifying the correct set of statements, focus on thematic consistency and logical implication. If two statements imply the third, you’ve likely found the correct grouping.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The correct set is (C) — statements 2, 4, and 5. Reasoning: - (2) “All teachers need training” — universal affirmative: every teacher falls into the category of those who need training. - (4) “X is a teacher” — identifies X as a member of the group “teachers.” - (5) “X needs training” — follows logically from (2) and (4) by the basic rule of syllogism: \[ \text{All teachers} \rightarrow \text{need training} \] \[ \text{X is a teacher} \rightarrow \text{X needs training} \] This set forms a complete, logically consistent chain. Why others are incorrect: - (A) includes statement 1, which is unrelated to the “training” context of 2 and 5. - (B) mixes 2 and 3 but does not lead to 4 as a logical conclusion in the same sense. - (D) includes statement 6, which is unrelated to the “teacher-training” theme.

Answer 2

The question asks us to pick the set of three statements that together form a complete and logically connected chain, out of the six given statements. Let's test each option by checking whether its three statements link up as premise, premise, and conclusion.

1. Option A (1, 2, 5): Statement 1 ("All human beings need education") talks about education, not training. Statement 2 ("All teachers need training") and statement 5 ("X needs training") are both about training, but nothing in this set introduces X as a teacher, so statement 5 cannot be derived from statement 2 within this group. Statement 1 sits completely outside the training theme and contributes nothing to the chain. This group does not form a valid, self-contained argument.
2. Option B (2, 3, 4): Statement 2 is about teachers needing training, statement 3 ("Education is provided by the teachers") is about who provides education, and statement 4 ("X is a teacher") identifies X. Statement 3 introduces an idea about provision of education that is never used to reach any conclusion, so the three statements do not connect into one coherent chain ending in a stated conclusion.
3. Option C (2, 4, 5): Statement 2 gives the general rule that every teacher needs training. Statement 4 places X inside the group "teachers." Statement 5 states the conclusion that follows automatically from applying the general rule to X: X needs training. Every statement here plays a role, the general rule, the specific case, and the conclusion, and no statement is left unused or unrelated. This is a complete, self-supporting set.
4. Option D (4, 5, 6): Statements 4 and 5 fit the training chain, but statement 6 ("Students are future of a nation") is about students and nations, a topic that never connects to teachers, training, or X. Including it breaks the coherence of the group.

Only option C keeps every statement relevant and shows one statement following necessarily from the other two, with nothing extra and nothing missing.

Therefore, the correct answer is 2, 4, 5.

Answer 3

Out of the six statements, we need the exact trio that forms a complete categorical syllogism, one universal premise, one premise placing a specific individual inside that universal statement, and a conclusion that follows purely from these two. Let's identify the required roles first, then check which option supplies all three correctly.

1. 1, 2, 5 (All human beings need education; All teachers need training; X needs training): A valid syllogism needs a middle term shared between the two premises that then drops out of the conclusion. Statement 2 has "teachers" and "training" as its terms, while statement 1 has "human beings" and "education" as its terms; the two premises share no common term at all, so they cannot combine into a single argument. Statement 5 is left standing as a conclusion with no premise ever placing X inside "teachers."
2. 2, 3, 4 (All teachers need training; Education is provided by teachers; X is a teacher): Statement 2 carries the terms "teachers" and "training." Statement 3 carries the terms "teachers" and "education," a different major term entirely. Since the two universal statements don't share both a middle term and lead toward one common major term, and neither combines with statement 4 to produce any stated conclusion, this set never completes into a syllogism, it stops at two premises with no conclusion drawn.
3. 2, 4, 5 (All teachers need training; X is a teacher; X needs training): Statement 2 is the universal premise, linking the middle term "teachers" to the major term "training." Statement 4 is the minor premise, placing the individual term "X" inside the middle term "teachers." Statement 5 is the conclusion, linking the minor term "X" directly to the major term "training," exactly what a first-figure categorical syllogism produces once the middle term "teachers" is cancelled out between the two premises. Every structural role, major premise, minor premise, conclusion, is filled by exactly one statement.
4. 4, 5, 6 (X is a teacher; X needs training; Students are future of a nation): Statements 4 and 5 look like a minor premise and conclusion, but there is no universal premise here to license moving from "X is a teacher" to "X needs training"; statement 6 supplies no premise about teachers or training at all, so it cannot fill that missing role either.

Only the second option's set assigns one statement to each required structural slot, universal premise, minor premise, and conclusion, with the middle term "teachers" cancelling out cleanly between the two premises.

Therefore, the correct answer is 2, 4, 5.