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: Some tears are drops. Some drops are streams. All streams are rivers. Conclusions: I. All tears can never be rivers. II. Some drops are rivers. III. All tears being streams is a possibility.
- (a)Only conclusion I follows
- (b)Both II and III conclusion follow
- (c)Only conclusion III follows
- (d)Both I and II conclusion follow
Answer
Why
Correct — B. Take the three conclusions one at a time.
Conclusion II follows. 'Some drops are streams' and 'All streams are rivers' chain directly: the drops that are streams are rivers, so some drops are rivers.
Conclusion III follows. It claims only a possibility. Nothing forbids tears from being streams, because 'some tears are drops' leaves room for all tears to be drops, and 'some drops are streams' leaves room for those drops to be streams.
Conclusion I does not follow. 'All tears can never be rivers' is a definite denial, and III has just shown that all tears can be streams and so rivers. A denial fails unless the statements make the case impossible.
II and III follow and I does not, which is option (b).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)Only conclusion I follows — It selects the single conclusion that fails. 'Can never' demands that the statements rule the case out, and no statement here denies any link between tears and rivers.
- (c)Only conclusion III follows — III does follow, but this option drops II, which is the one direct chain in the question: some drops are streams, all streams are rivers, so some drops are rivers.
- (d)Both I and II conclusion follow — II is right, but I is not. The statements leave 'all tears are rivers' open, and a conclusion that says it can never happen needs the statements to close it.
Concept
Syllogism items mix three kinds of conclusion and each is judged by a different test.
A definite positive conclusion must be forced by the statements. A definite negative, carrying 'never' or 'cannot', must be forced too, so it fails whenever the case it denies is still open.
A possibility conclusion is the loosest of the three. It succeeds as soon as the statements fail to forbid the case, and it never has to be proved. That asymmetry is what makes I and III behave in opposite ways here even though they are about the same relation.
The instruction to accept the statements even where they contradict common knowledge is standard on this item type. It is there to stop you reasoning about real tears and real rivers instead of about the sets the statements define.
Key facts
- 'Some A are B' with 'All B are C' gives 'Some A are C', the only direct chain these statements support.
- A possibility conclusion follows whenever the statements do not rule the case out.
- A conclusion using 'never' or 'cannot' is a definite claim and fails while the case it denies remains possible.
Study next
Common traps
- Reading 'All tears being streams is a possibility' as the claim that all tears are streams
- Rejecting a possibility conclusion because it is not proved, when possibility only needs to be unforbidden
- Chaining 'Some tears are drops' with 'Some drops are streams' to get 'some tears are streams', which two 'some' statements never yield
SSC puts one chain conclusion, one possibility conclusion and one definite negative in the same item, so the answer nearly always splits them rather than accepting or rejecting all three.
When one option offers only the negative conclusion, it is usually the trap, because a negative needs far more support than candidates expect.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.