Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction To Syllogism
Introduction To Syllogism
Introduction To Syllogism
Introduction to Syllogism
2. Basics
3. Subject vs Predicate
4. Classification of statement
5. Standard format: conversion
6. No conclusion Combos
7. Conclusive-Combos
8. DemoQ: Crazy men and Women
9. DemoQ: Intelligent Poets and singers
10. CAT-level
o DemoQ: Sweet Testing Apples (CAT)
o DemoQ: Working mother nurses (CAT)
o DemoQ: 4 questions in 1!
11. Special Conversions
12. Complimentary pairs
13. Tricky Situations: Priority order
14. Tricky Situations: 1-Statement Conclusion
15. Summary
Introduction to Syllogism
There are two main types of Syllogism question
2-Statements 3-Statements
Question Statement
A. All cats are dogs
Question Statement:
B. some pigs are cats
I. All cats are dogs
C. no dogs are birdsConclusion
II. All dogs are birdsConclusion:
I. some cats are dogs
I. Some cats are birds
II. no birds are cats
II. Some birds are cats.
III. some pigs are birds
IV. some pigs are not birds
2 Statement Syllogism questions are usually found in IBPS (Bank) and SSC
exams.
UPSC CSAT 2012 exam had quite a few questions on 3 Statement Syllogism.
Subject Predicate
In CAT exams, they ask 2 Statement Syllogism but they pack 3-4 such “2-
statement” syllogism questions inside one question to make it very time-
consuming process.
In this article, you will learn how to solve the 2 Statement syllogism questions.
3 Statement syllogism syllogism is explained in separate article (CLICK
ME). (They’re mere an extension of the concepts explained in this article, so first
master the 2-statement technique here.)
Have to mugup some rules, and spend some hours @home to master
2. AEIO (analytical
the “AEIO” conversion in your head. But once done, it is easy as a walk
Method)
in the park.
Basics
Subject vs Predicate
Consider this question statement
1. All cats are dogs
2. Some dogs are birds
3. No bird is a pig
4. Some pigs are not birds.
In all such statements, first-term is called subject and second is called predicate.
It doesn’t matter what word is given: Table, Chair, Raja, Kalmadi, Kanimozhi or
Madhu Koda – first term is subject and second term is predicate.
Let’s relook at those question statements
1. All cats are dogs Cats Dogs
I hope the Subject vs. Predicate is clear now. Let’s move to second thing
Classification of statement
In syllogism, each statement usually has following format
“xyz subject is/are (not) predicate.”
For example,
Universal (positive or
All, every, any, none, not a single, only etc.
negative)
Some, many, a few, quite a few, not many, very little, most of, Particular (positive or
almost, generally, often, freqently, etc. negative)
No conclusion can be drawn. Because it has four terms (cats, dogs, birds,
1. All cats are Dogs
pigs)
2. Some birds are
A–>B
pigs
C–>D
But if the given question statements are not given in this format, then we must
convert them into above format. Otherwise we cannot proceed with answer. For
example
Given question statements are This must be converted into
1. A—>B 1. A—>B
2. C—>B 2. B—>C
Some Cats are Dogs Some dogs are cats Particular Positive (PP)
Particular Negative
Example: Some Cats are not Dogs. In Particular negative statements (PN), no
conversion can be made.
So PN=can’t convert.
Please note:
In some lower level exams, sometimes they directly ask about conversion. For
example
Q. What can be concluded from the given statement: “Some Politicians are honest
men.”
Answer choices
4. None of Above.
–not applicable because C is the correct answer.
Case #1
Data
1. Sardar Patel
Subject (Politicians) 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri
3. Raja
4. Kalmadi
1. Sardar Patel
Predicate (Honest Men) 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri
In above situation, can you say “Some honest men are not politicians”?
Well you can’t say that. Because both Honest men (Sardar and Shastri) are in
politician set.
Case #2
Data
1. Sardar Patel
Subject (Politicians) 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri
3. Raja
4. Kalmadi
1. Sardar Patel
2. Lal Bahadur Shastri
Predicate (Honest Men) 3. Bhagat Singh
4. ChandraSekhar Azad
In above situation, can you say “Some honest men are not politicians”?
Yes you can. Because two Honest men (Bhagat Singh and Azad) are not in
politician set.
The point is, whenever “two cases” are possible, you cannot ‘safely’ conclude
one statement.
Some “A” are “B”–> it doesn’t mean Some “B” are not “A”.
The only valid conclusion in above case is :Some “B” are “A”.
Universal Positive (UP)All cats(A) Only PPSome Cats (A) are dogs. A to BB
are dogs (B) (B)Some dogs (B) are cats. (A) to A
Now coming to the heart of the matter: how to solve the (stupid) 2 statement
syllogism question?
No conclusion Combos
Here are the non-conclusion combos when two question statements are in following
format.
First statement (A to B) Second statement (B to C) Answer
Particular Negative (PN) Any other (UP, UN, PP, PN) No conclusion
1. UP’s politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative).
E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11 th hour.
2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular)
3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody.
4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. (although implicit in 2+3)
5. Two particulars=no conclusion. (although implicit in 1+3)
1. first, make sure it contains only three terms (ABC) (else no conclusion.)
2. Make sure question statements are in standard format (A to B then B to C). If not
in standard format, then re-arrange.
3. Classify the question statements. (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Check if the question statements have no conclusion combos (^Above rules)
if above things donot yield an answer, then we’ve to think about what will be the
“conclusion(s)”?
Conclusive-Combos
If you’ve followed above steps, then question statements in the format “A to B and
then B to C.”
Second statement (B to
First statement (A to B) Conclusion
C)
Conclusive-
In your head, visualize
Combos
1. UP+UP=UP If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then its size doesn’t
increase.
2. UP+UN=UN If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then its size increases and
it becomes United Nations.
United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in very positive mood.
3. UN+
But he meets another positive person, and his attitude is
(UP/PP)=PN
totally reversed– he becomes particularly negative!
(reversed =C to A)
4. PP+
When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his
(UP/UN)=PP/P
mood becomes positive or negative depending on the mood of
N
universe.
Conclusion
Answer
(I suggest you pause here. First try to solve it on your own, without directly reading
the solution. If you’ve difficulty, re-read rules given above)
Solution
Our standard operating procedure (SOP)
Question Statements
First step: make sure four terms are not given = check. Only three terms (men,
women, crazy)
Second step, make sure they’re in standard format (A to B and then B to C): Check
yes they’re.
Hence conversion is not required.
1. All men(A) are women. (B) (UP)
Well, since it is UP+UP= its size doesn’t increase. Hence conclusion should be
UP. (A to C) meaning All men(A) are crazy.(C)
Recall that “conversion table”.Universal Positive (UP) can be converted only into
Particular Positive (PP).
2. All the crazy
Since All men are crazy => Some Crazy are men.
are men
But we cannot say All crazy are men. So this option is false.
If you apply common sense at this stage: well, 1st statement correct, and
2nd statement is false, hence answer is (C): only 1, 3 and 4 follow!
3. Some of the
crazy are men Correct because of “conversion table”
4. Some of the
Given question statement : All women are crazy. (Universal positive). If we apply
crazy are
conversion table (UP=> PP) then Some Crazy are women. Hence this statement
women
is also correct.
Conclusion
Answer choices
solution
first step: does the question statements have only three terms? Check: Yes. Singers,
poets, intelligent. Good, proceed with next step.
Second step: Are the question statements given in standard format (A to B then B to
C)?
Check. Nope
Then we have to convert it into standard format. And since both statements are
universal positive, we don’t need to worry about which statement to convert first?
(that “priority order”, more about it, explained at the bottom of this article.)
Second statement is universal positive (UP), according to our table, we can only
convert it into particular positive (PP) therefore
All singers (C) are intelligent. (B)==> Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.(C)
Now the new question statements, in the standard format (A to B then B to C) are
1. All poets are intelligent (B)
2. Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.
Third step, classify the question statements
CAT-level
Same UP-UN Concept but they pack 3-4 or more syllogism questions into one
question to test your speed, not just your understanding. for example:
answer choices
1. cea
2. bdc
3. cbd
4. eac
In the actual CAT exam, we cannot afford to waste time in actually converting all
statements and checking them.
Here is the fast approach
1. three terms?= yes
2. in standard format? No. but we can convert second (UN) into another UN and then
combo rule is UP+UN=UN.
Hence this answer choice (CEA) is correct.
Final answer (i) CEA
a. No mother is a nurse.
b. Some Nurses like to work 1. ABE
c. No woman is prude 2. CED
d. Some prude are also nurses 3. FEB
e. Some nurses are women 4. BEF
f. All women like to work
i. ABE
This is invalid. Because Statement I and II have three terms (Mother, Nurse and
work) while given conclusion statement adds fourth new term “women”
Statement Type
2. No woman(B) is prude(C)
When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes
particularly negative or positive depending on the mood of universe. Hence
PP+UN=PN.(A to C)
So legitimate conclusion is “Some Prune arenot nurses”.
But Check the given conclusion statement: “Some prude are also nurses.” It is
Particular positive (PP).
But According to conversion table, PN cannot be converted. So we cannot say
that since “Some prune are not nurses, that means some prunes are nurses!”
Therefore given answer choice(ii) CED is false because D cannot be concluded
from C+E.
Move to the next answer choice.
Actual thought process: three terms =yes. Standard form=no. rearrange. But
PP+UN=PN, can’t be converted to PP. Hence false.
iii.FEB
Statement Type
three terms =yes. Standard form=no. but no need to convert, just exchange position
of statement I and II.
DemoQ: 4 questions in 1!
This one is from CAT-1999.
Each of the given question statement as three segments. Choose the alternative
where third segment of the statement can be logically be used using the both
preceding two but not just from one of them
Question statements
a. all dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures. Water buffaloes are not dinosaurs. Water
buffaloes are not prehistoric creatures
b. all politicians are frank. No frank people are crocodiles. No crocodiles are
politicians
c. no diamond is quartz. No opal is quartz. Diamonds are opals.
d. All monkeys like bananas. Some Joes like bananas. Some Joes are monkeys.
Answer choice
i. Only C
ii. Only B
iii. Only A and D
iv. Only B and C
Approach
Special Conversions
Recall that when question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C),
in that case we’ve to convert them according to conversion table. Here are some
special cases.
Conversion (all applicable to all given question
Given Question statement Type
statements)
Second concept:
Complimentary pairs
Earlier we saw there are five no-conclusion combos
1. UP’s politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative).
E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11 th hour.
2. United Nations hates negativity of any type. (both Universal and particular)
3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody.
4. Two-negatives=no conclusion.
5. Two particulars=no conclusion.
Question statement 1. Some Politicians are male.2. Some males are honest.
For example
Answer choice
a. Only 1 follows
b. Only 2 follows
c. Either 1 or 2 follows
d. Neither follows
Apply the standard operating procedure:
Three terms? Check: yes
Are they in standard format? A to B then B to C? check. Yes
Case#2
5. Sardar Patel
1. Sardar Patel 1. Sardar Patel
6. Lal Bahadur Shastri
2. Lal Bahadur Shastri 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri
3. Raja 3. Bhagat Singh
7. Raja
4. Kalmadi 4. ChandraSekhar Azad
5. Bhagat Singh 5. Sarojini Naidu
8. Kalmadi
6. ChandraSekhar Azad 6. Mother Teresa
9. Sheila
Case#2
1. Bhagat Singh
1. Raja
1. Raja 2. ChandraSekhar
2. Kalmadi
2. Kalmadi Azad
3. Bhagat Singh
3. Sheila 3. Sarojini Naidu
4. ChandraSekhar Azad
4. Mother Teresa
In this case, No politician is honest.
So “conclusion (2) may be possible.”
Therefore answer becomes “Either 1 or 2 follows”
Such syllogism-situations are called “complementary”.
You’ve to check following things, before thinking about “complementary” cases.
1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Honest are
Politicians are honestBecause both have Politicians.In first statement, subject=Politician but in
common subject (politician) and common second statement, subject= Honest. Hence
predicate (honest) complemantary case not possible.
When these two conditions are met, then answer would be “Either (I) or (II) follows.”
Priority order
You know that when Question statements are not in standard format (A to B Then B
to C), we must convert them. But here is a thing to keep in mind. Consider these
statements
Question statements:
1. All Dogs are Cats.
2. Some Dogs are Pigs.
Common term or middle term is Dogs. So that’s our “B”.
1. All Dogs(B) are Cats.
2. Some Dogs(B) are Pigs.
Route #1 Route #2
As you can see, the question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to
C).
Since question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C), hence we’ll
convert first statement. (UP to PP)After conversion
WRON
1. Some birds(A) are women (B)
2. Some women(B) are tree
G
Both question statements are particular, hence final answer=No conclusion. (please note:
this approach is wrong, because we’ve not followed the priority order).
First the wrong approach.
Hence conclusion is
We can also say that Some birds are trees. (PP to PP conversion). Therefore answer
is (1)
Moral of the story: Conversion priority: PP>UN>UP. Especially when you’re getting
PP+PP= no conclusion after conversion.
1. All the flowers are leaves.(B) (UP) 1. Some birds are flowers
2. Some leaves(B) are birds (PP) 2. Some leaves are flowers
Apply combo rules: UP+PP=No conclusion because Uttar Pradesh’s politicians hate
particular statements.
1. Some birds
are flowers Not possible because combo rule.
2. Some first question statement says All flowers are leaves. If you apply the
leaves are conversion rule UP->PP, thenAll flowers are leaves=> Some leaves are
flowers flowers. Hence this conclusion is correct, although it did not employ both
question statements.
Moral of the story: Read terms (subject-predicate) of conclusion statements
Summary
5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and “either or” given in answer, then check for
Complimentary case.