Statements:No rabbit is lion. Some horses are lions. All rabbits are t...
Explanation:
Some horses are lions. No rabbit is lion.
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term.
So, it follows that 'Some horses are not rabbits'.
All rabbits are tables. No rabbit is lion.
Since the middle term 'rabbits' is distributed twice, the conclusion must be particular.
Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. So, it follows that 'Some tables are not lions'. Since I and III involve the same terms and form a complementary pair, so either I or III follows.
View all questions of this testStatements:No rabbit is lion. Some horses are lions. All rabbits are t...
Explanation:
Given Statements:
- No rabbit is lion.
- Some horses are lions.
- All rabbits are tables.
Conclusions:
- Some tables are lions.
- Some horses are rabbits.
- No lion is table.
Analysis:
- From the given statements, we can see that there is no direct correlation between rabbits and lions or lions and tables.
- The conclusion "Some tables are lions" cannot be derived from the given statements because there is no information connecting tables and lions.
- The conclusion "Some horses are rabbits" also cannot be derived as there is no direct link between horses and rabbits in the statements.
- The conclusion "No lion is table" can be derived from the given statements as all rabbits are tables and no rabbit is a lion, implying that no lion can be a table.
Conclusion:
- Only the third conclusion follows as it can be logically deduced from the given statements.