In this question, three statements are given, followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follows/follow from the statements. Statements: No medicine is a capsule. Some capsules are tablets. Some tablets are laptops. Conclusions: I. Some capsules are laptops. II. All tablets can never be medicines.
- (a)Neither Conclusion I nor II follow.
- (b)Only Conclusion II follows.
- (c)Both Conclusions I and II follow.
- (d)Only Conclusion I follows.
Answer
Why
Correct — B. Rule: a conclusion follows only if it holds in every diagram the statements allow. A possibility is not a conclusion.
Conclusion I says some capsules are laptops. The link runs capsules - tablets - laptops, and the tablets that are laptops need not be the same tablets that are capsules.
You can draw the laptops entirely clear of the capsules without breaking any statement, so Conclusion I is possible but not certain. It does not follow.
Conclusion II says all tablets can never be medicines. "Some capsules are tablets" puts at least one tablet inside the capsules.
"No medicine is a capsule" keeps every medicine outside the capsules. That tablet therefore cannot be a medicine, so "all tablets are medicines" is impossible in every diagram — which is exactly what Conclusion II claims.
Conclusion II survives and Conclusion I does not — option (b).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Neither Conclusion I nor II follow. — It rejects Conclusion II, but some capsules are tablets forces at least one tablet into the capsule circle, and no medicine is allowed into that circle.
- (c)Both Conclusions I and II follow. — It accepts Conclusion I. Two 'some' statements linked in a chain never guarantee an overlap at the two ends, so some capsules are laptops stays a possibility.
- (d)Only Conclusion I follows. — It has the two the wrong way round: the negative conclusion is the certain one here, and the positive overlap is the one that is merely possible.
Concept
Syllogisms are settled by drawing, then by attack. Draw the statements, then try to make the conclusion false while keeping every statement true. If you succeed, it does not follow.
A negative statement is the strongest tool in these sets. "No medicine is a capsule" separates two circles completely, so anything you can push into the capsule circle is thereby kept out of medicines — which is how Conclusion II is proved.
A chain of two 'some' statements leaves its two ends free of each other. Some capsules are tablets and some tablets are laptops together say nothing definite about capsules and laptops.
Conclusion II is phrased as an impossibility — 'can never be' — rather than as a plain statement. It is proved by finding one thing that blocks it, not by drawing every case.
Key facts
- 'Some capsules are tablets' converts to 'some tablets are capsules', which is what makes Conclusion II work.
- 'No medicine is a capsule' converts to 'no capsule is a medicine'.
- Two particular statements in a chain yield no definite conclusion between the ends.
Study next
Common traps
- Treating a possible overlap as a conclusion that follows
- Missing that 'can never be' is proved by a single blocking case inside the diagram
- Answering from what you know about medicines and tablets, which the instruction bars
The same three-statement, two-conclusion frame runs at 19 Sep 2024, 12:30, Reasoning Q.5 and at 24 Sep 2024, 16:00, Reasoning Q.10, where in both cases neither conclusion follows.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.