In this question, three statements are given, followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: All cars are birds. Some birds are plants. All plants are leaves. Conclusions: I.Some birds are cars. II.Some plants are birds. III.Some leaves are plants.

Correct — B. Each conclusion is a conversion of one statement, so none of them needs a chain or a diagram.

Rule: All A are B gives Some B are A. Some A are B gives Some B are A.

I. All cars are birds, so some birds are cars. Follows.
II. Some birds are plants, so some plants are birds. Follows.
III. All plants are leaves, so some leaves are plants. Follows.

Three out of three, which is option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only conclusions II and III follow. — It drops conclusion I. But All cars are birds converts to some birds are cars, the same move that conclusion II makes on the second statement.
• (c)
  Only conclusions I and III follow. — It drops conclusion II, the plainest of the three. Some birds are plants and some plants are birds say one thing with the two terms swapped.
• (d)
  None of the conclusions follows. — None-follow is right only when every conclusion needs a link the statements do not supply. Here each conclusion re-states a single statement.

Syllogism items mix two different jobs. One is combining statements, which needs a chain such as all cars are birds and all birds are leaves.

The other is immediate inference — reading one statement backwards. Conversion is the immediate inference SSC leans on. A universal affirmative, all A are B, converts only partially, to some B are A. A particular affirmative, some A are B, converts fully.

Neither move touches the other statements, so a conclusion that is a conversion stands on its own.

Key facts

• All A are B converts to Some B are A, never to All B are A.
• Some A are B converts to Some B are A.
• A conclusion drawn from one statement alone does not need the other statements to support it.

Common traps

• Converting All cars are birds into All birds are cars, which does not follow.
• Rejecting conclusion I because the statement is factually absurd.
• Hunting for a chain across the three statements when each conclusion re-states one of them.

No directly related past PYQ was found.