Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statements is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: Some bags are purses. All purses are wallets. All wallets are sacks. Conclusions: (I) All purses are sacks. (II) Some wallets are bags.
- (a)Only conclusion (I) is follow
- (b)Neither conclusion (I) nor (II) is follow
- (c)Both conclusions (I) and (II) are follow
- (d)Only conclusion (II) is follow
Answer
Why
Correct — C. Chain the two universal statements first, then attach the particular one.
Rule: all purses are wallets and all wallets are sacks, so a chain of two 'all' statements passes straight through.
Conclusion (I): every purse is a wallet and every wallet is a sack, so every purse is a sack. It follows.
Conclusion (II): the bags that are purses are wallets too, so at least one wallet is a bag. A 'some' statement can be read either way round, so 'some wallets are bags' holds. It follows.
Both conclusions stand, which is option (c).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Only conclusion (I) is follow — Option (a) accepts the chain but drops conclusion (II). It misses that a 'some' statement converts: some bags are purses gives some purses are bags, and every purse is a wallet.
- (b)Neither conclusion (I) nor (II) is follow — Option (b) rejects a chain of two universals. All purses are wallets and all wallets are sacks forces all purses to be sacks, so conclusion (I) cannot be denied.
- (d)Only conclusion (II) is follow — Option (d) denies conclusion (I), but the two 'all' statements link directly: purses sit inside wallets, wallets sit inside sacks, and no purse is left outside sacks.
Concept
Two rules decide almost every SSC syllogism of this shape.
First, a chain of universals passes through: all A are B together with all B are C gives all A are C, with no conditions attached.
Second, a particular statement converts freely. Some A are B and some B are A say the same thing, which is what lets a fact about bags travel up the chain and come back as a fact about wallets.
A universal does not convert. All purses are wallets does not license all wallets are purses.
The options are printed with the paper's own wording, 'is follow', so match an option by what it claims rather than by its grammar.
Key facts
- All A are B plus all B are C gives all A are C, unconditionally.
- Some A are B converts to some B are A, so a particular statement reads either way round.
- All A are B does not convert — the most you may infer is some B are A.
- The instruction to treat the statements as true even where they contradict common facts is part of the question.
Study next
Common traps
- Refusing conclusion (II) because bags and wallets never appear together in a single statement
- Converting 'all purses are wallets' into 'all wallets are purses'
- Drawing the diagram with bags wholly outside purses, which 'some bags are purses' forbids
This two-statement syllogism stays shallow — one chain and one conversion, both decidable without a diagram once the rules are known.
The harder three-statement version, with a negative premise, sits later in this shift at Reasoning Q.24.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.