Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: All birds are animals. Some animals are tigers. No tiger is a bird. Conclusions: I. Some tigers are birds. II. Some animals are not birds.

Correct — B.
Rule: Some A are B + No B is C → Some A are not C.

Some animals are tigers, and no tiger is a bird.
So the animals that are tigers are not birds: some animals are not birds. II follows.

I, 'Some tigers are birds', denies the statement No tiger is a bird, so it cannot follow.

Only II follows → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only I follows — I contradicts a statement: No tiger is a bird rules out even one tiger that is a bird, so Some tigers are birds is false, not merely unproven.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Both fails because I is ruled out. No tiger is a bird, so no tiger can be among the birds.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — Neither misses II. The animals that are tigers cannot be birds, since no tiger is a bird, so some animals are certainly not birds.

A syllogism asks what must be true in every picture the statements allow, not what is likely.

Draw the sets. Birds sit inside animals, tigers overlap animals, and tigers and birds do not touch. In every such drawing the tiger part of animals lies outside birds, so some animals are not birds always holds.

A conclusion that directly denies a statement, like some tigers are birds, can never follow.

Key facts

• Some A are B and No B is C together give Some A are not C.
• A conclusion that contradicts a given statement never follows.
• All birds are animals does not make every animal a bird.

Common traps

• Rejecting II because no statement says 'not' about animals directly
• Reading All birds are animals backwards as all animals are birds

No directly related past PYQ was found.