Introduction

There are two main types of Syllogism question 2-Statements 3-Statements

Question Statement A. All cats are dogs Question Statement: B. some pigs are cats I. All cats are dogs C. no dogs are birdsConclusion II. All dogs are birdsConclusion: I. some cats are dogs I. Some cats are birds II. no birds are cats II. Some birds are cats. III. some pigs are birds IV. some pigs are not birds

2 Statement Syllogism questions are usually found in IBPS (Bank) and SSC exams. UPSC CSAT 2012 exam had quite a few questions on 3 Statement Syllogism. In CAT exams, they ask 2 Statement Syllogism but they pack 34 such 2-statement syllogism questions inside one question to make it very time-consuming process. In this article, you will learn how to solve the 2 Statement syllogism questions. 3 Statement syllogism syllogism is explained in separate article (CLICK ME). (Theyre mere an extension of the concepts explained in this article, so first master the 2-statement technique here.)

2-statement Syllogism questions

There are three methods to solve 2-statement Syllogism questions. 1. Venn Diagram

In the exam, Have to think of all possible Venn-Diagram situation and draw them to check every statement.=

time consuming in the exam hall.

2. AEIO (analytical Method)

Have to mugup some rules, and spend some hours @home to master the AEIO conversion in your head. But once done, it is easy as a walk in the park. Usually taught in CAT coaching classes and study material. Technique is very fast but It excludes the concept of Conversion and Complementary cases, hence sometimes makes it difficult to solve non-CAT questions.

3. Distribution of terms (Tick method)

The technique explained in this article, is a modified version of AEIO method combined with the Tick Method. Lets call itU.P.-U.N. method.

Basics Subject vs Predicate

Consider this question statement 1. All cats are dogs 2. Some dogs are birds 3. No bird is a pig 4. Some pigs are not birds. In all such statements, first-term is called subject and second is called predicate. It doesnt matter what word is given: Table, Chair, Raja, Kalmadi, Kanimozhi or Madhu Koda first term is subject and second term is predicate. Lets relook at those question statements Subject Predicate 1. All cats are dogs Cats Dogs

2. Some dogs are birds 3. No bird is a pig

Dogs Bird

Birds Pig Birds

4. Some pigs are not birds. Pigs

I hope the Subject vs. Predicate is clear now. Lets move to second thing

Classification of statement
In syllogism, each statement usually has following format xyz subject is/are (not) predicate. For example, Xyz All Subject Is/are (+/-not) Predicate Cats Are Are not Dogs birds

Some Pigs

Based on xyz and not, we classify the statements as following Statement 1. All cats are dogs 2. Some dogs are birds 3. No bird is a pig Type Universal Positive Particular Positive Codename UP PP

Universal Negative UN

4. Some pigs are not birds. Particular Negative PN Please remember following words. Whenever they come, you classify the statement accordingly.

All, every, any, none, not a single, only etc. Some, many, a few, quite a few, not many, very little, most of, almost, generally, often, freqently, etc.

Universal (positive or negative) Particular (positive or negative)

Standard format: conversion

The standard 2-statement syllogism question format is following: 1. (xyz) A is/are (+/- not) B 2. (xyz) B is/are (+/- not) C So basically it is 1. A>B 2. B>C (read as A to B then B to C) What does this tell us? Question statements must have ONLY three terms. (A, B and C). In the exam, if they give you two question statements with four terms then your time is saved! Just tick the answer no conclusion can be drawn. For example Question statements 1. All cats are Dogs 2. Some birds are pigs Answer No conclusion can be drawn. Because it has four terms (cats, dogs, birds, pigs) A>B C>D

Anyways back to the topic, The standard format for question statements is: 1. A>B 1. First term>Middle Term 2. B>C 2. Middle Term>Third term

But if the given question statements are not given in this format, then we must convert them into above format. Otherwise we cannot proceed with answer. For example Given question statements are This must be converted into 1. A>B 1. A>B 2. C>B 2. B>C Given question statements are This must be converted into 1. B>A 1. A>B 2. B>C 2. B>C Ok, so how to convert the statements? Universal Positive (UP) Given Statement Valid conversions Some Cats are dogs Some dogs are cats Type Particular Positive (PP) Particular Positive (PP)

Given Statement: All Cats are Dogs

It means UP can be converted into PP. Please note: if the statement is Only Dogs are cats, then better convert it into All cats are dogs. (Only A is B > All B are A) Universal Negative (UN) Given Statement Valid conversions Some dogs are not cats No dogs are cats It means UN can be converted into PN or UN. Type Particular Negative (PN) Universal Negative (UN)

Given Statement: No Cats are Dogs

Particular Positive (PP) Given Statement Valid conversions Type

Some Cats are Dogs Some dogs are cats Particular Positive (PP) It means PP can be converted into PP only. Particular Negative Example: Some Cats are not Dogs. In Particular negative statements (PN), no conversion can be made. So PN=cant convert. To sum up the conversion rules Type Universal Positive (UP) Valid Conversion Only PP

Universal Negative (UN) PN or UN Particular Positive (PP) Only PP

Particular Negative (PN) Not possible. Please note: In some lower level exams, sometimes they directly ask about conversion. For example Q. What can be concluded from the given statement: Some Politicians are honest men. Answer choices 1. 2. 3. 4. Some Honest men are not Politicians. All Honest men are not politician Some Honest men are politicians. None of Above.

(Please donot read further, without solving above question.) Solution

well, the given statement Some Politicians are honest men. is a particular positive statement (PP). Hence according to our table, it can be converted into PP only. Therefore Given answer choice 1. Some Honest men are not Politicians. 2. No Honest men are politicians. 3. Some Honest men are politicians. 4. None of Above. Thought process Particular negative (PN), hence eliminate. Universal Negative, hence eliminate PP hence this is correct answer. not applicable because C is the correct answer.

In case you are wondering, Q. Some politicians are honest men. In above case, cant the answer be A: Some honest men are not politicians? Well, if you go by Venn Diagram method, itll lead to two cases hence it is doubtful. Case #1 Data 1. 2. 3. 4. Sardar Patel Lal Bahadur Shastri Raja Kalmadi

Subject (Politicians)

Predicate (Honest Men)

1. Sardar Patel 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri

In above situation, can you say Some honest men are not politicians?

Well you cant say that. Because both Honest men (Sardar and Shastri) are in politician set. Case #2 Data 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. Sardar Patel Lal Bahadur Shastri Raja Kalmadi Sardar Patel Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhagat Singh ChandraSekhar Azad

Subject (Politicians)

Predicate (Honest Men)

In above situation, can you say Some honest men are not politicians? Yes you can. Because two Honest men (Bhagat Singh and Azad) are not in politician set. The point is, whenever two cases are possible, you cannot safely conclude one statement.

Hence, if the statement is

Some A are B> it doesnt mean Some B are not A. The only valid conclusion in above case is :Some B are A.

Therefore Particular Positive (PP) statement can be converted into Particular Positive (PP) statement only. Similarly Type of Statement Valid Conversion Only PP Universal Positive (UP) All cats(A) are dogs (B) Some Cats (A) are dogs. (B) Some dogs (B) are cats. (A) B to A Path A to B

Universal Negative (UN) No Cats(A) are dogs (B) Particular Positive (PP) Some cats (A) are dogs (B) Particular Negative (PN)

PN :Some Dogs (B) are not Cats (A). UN: No Dogs (B) are cats. (A) Only PP: Some dogs (B) are cats(A) Not possible.

B to A

B to A

Anyways back to the topic, what are we discussing? 1. Topic of discussion is: How to solve 2 statement syllogism question 2. Subject vs predicate 3. Type of statements (UP, UN, PP, PN) 4. Standard format and conversion. The standard question format is A>B B>C If the given question doesnt have statements in ^above standard format, then we must convert them into standard format. Only then we can proceed further. So far, We constructed our shortcut table on how to convert the statements. Now lets try some examples Question statements 1. All Cats are dogs(B) 2. Some dogs(B) are not pigs. 1. Some dogs(B) are not pigs. 2. All Cats are dogs(B) Conversion? Already in standard format (A to B and then B to C) hence no need to convert.

No need to convert any statement. Just exchange the position of first and second statement. 1. All Cats are dogs(B)

2. Some dogs(B) are not pigs. 1. All Cats are dogs (B) 2. All pigs are dogs(B) Have to convert, because not in standard format.1.All cats(A) are dogs(B) 2.Some dogs(B) are pigs(C). (Rule UP-> only PP)

Now coming to the heart of the matter: how to solve the (stupid) 2 statement syllogism question?

No conclusion Combos
Here are the non-conclusion combos when two question statements are in following format. First statement (A to B) Second statement (B to C) Particular Positive (PP) Universal Positive (UP) Particular Negative (PN) No conclusion No conclusion No conclusion No conclusion No conclusion No conclusion Answer No conclusion

Universal Negative (UN) Universal Negative (UN) Particular Negative (PN)

Particular Positive (PP) Particular Positive (PP) Particular Negative (PN) Particular Negative (PN) Any other (UP, UN, PP, PN)

^does it look difficult? Not really. Lets condense this table into mug-up rules. 1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11th hour. 2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular) 3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody. 4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. (although implicit in 2+3) 5. Two particulars=no conclusion. (although implicit in 1+3) Please note: in ^above situations definite conclusion is impossible. However, sometimes two answer choices are still possible either a or b. That concept is called Complimentary pairs. Well learn about it at the bottom of this article. For the moment, lets not complicate the matters with complimentary pairs. Ok back to topic, when you face a Two-statement syllogism question? youll follow these steps: 1. first, make sure it contains only three terms (ABC) (else no conclusion.) 2. Make sure question statements are in standard format (A to B then B to C). If not in standard format, then re-arrange. 3. Classify the question statements. (UP, UN, PP, PN) 4. Check if the question statements have no conclusion combos (^Above rules) if above things donot yield an answer, then weve to think about what will be the conclusion(s)?

Conclusive-Combos
If youve followed above steps, then question statements in the format A to B and then B to C. First statement (A to B) Universal Positive Second statement (B to C) Universal Positive Conclusion Universal Positive (UP) (A

(UP)

(UP) Universal Negative (UN) Universal positive (UP) Particular Positive (PP) Universal Positive (UP) Universal Negative (UN)

to C) Universal Negative (UN) (A to C)

Universal Negative (UN)

Particular Negative (PN). (C to A)

Particular Positive (PP)

Particular Positive (PP) (A to C) Particular Negative (PN) (A to C)

As you can see from above table, The answer statement is usually in the format of A to C. with exception when first question statement is Universal Negative (UN). Lets condense this table into mug-up rules as well. Conclusive-Combos 1. UP+UP=UP 2. UP+UN=UN In your head, visualize If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then its size doesnt increase. If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then its size increases and it becomes United Nations. United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in very positive mood. But he meets another positive person, and his attitude is totally reversed- he becomes particularly negative! (reversed =C to A)

3. UN+ (UP/PP)=PN

When Mr.PP observes the universe via 4. PP+ NASA telescope, his mood becomes positive (UP/UN)=PP/PN or negative depending on the mood of universe.

Try a question from SSC-CGL (Tier-I, 2010) exam,

DemoQ: Crazy men and Women

Question Statements 1. All men are women. 2. All women are crazy. Conclusion 1. 2. 3. 4. All Men are crazy All the crazy are men Some of the crazy are men Some of the crazy are women

Answer a. b. c. d. None of the conclusion follows All conclusions follow Only 1, 3 and 4 follow Only 2 and 3 follow

(I suggest you pause here. First try to solve it on your own, without directly reading the solution. If youve difficulty, re-read rules given above) Solution Our standard operating procedure (SOP) Question Statements 1. All men are women. 2. All women are crazy. First step: make sure four terms are not given = check. Only three terms (men, women, crazy) Second step, make sure theyre in standard format (A to B and then B to C): Check yes theyre. Hence conversion is not required. 1. All men(A) are women. (B) (UP)

2. All women(B) are crazy.(C) (UP) Third step, classify the statements. 1. All men are women. 2. All women are crazy. Universal Positive (UP) Universal Positive (UP)

Fourth step: check the combo for question statements.

Well, since it is UP+UP= its size doesnt increase. Hence conclusion should be UP. (A to C) meaning All men(A) are crazy.(C)

Check the answer statements. 1. All Men are crazy Correct. Recall that conversion table.Universal Positive (UP) can be converted only into Particular Positive (PP). Since All men are crazy => Some Crazy are men. But we cannot say All crazy are men. So this option is false. If you apply common sense at this stage: well, 1st statement correct, and 2nd statement is false, hence answer is (C): only 1, 3 and 4 follow! Correct because of conversion table Given question statement : All women are crazy. (Universal positive). If we apply conversion table (UP=> PP) then Some Crazy are women. Hence this statement is also correct.

2. All the crazy are men

3. Some of the crazy are men 4. Some of the crazy are women

Final answer (C): only 1, 3 and 4 follow If youre still staggering, I suggest you go through those rules again, note them down in a diary in your own words and language, revise a few times. Then try next question

DemoQ: Intelligent Poets and singers

Question Statements (SSC-CPO exam) 1. All poets are intelligent 2. All singers are intelligent. Conclusion 1. all singers are poets 2. some intelligent persons are not singers Answer choices a. b. c. d. only conclusion one follows only conclusion two follows either conclusion one or conclusion two follows neither follows solution first step: does the question statements have only three terms? Check: Yes. Singers, poets, intelligent. Good, proceed with next step. Second step: Are the question statements given in standard format (A to B then B to C)? Check. Nope 1. All poets (A) are intelligent (B) 2. All singers (C) are intelligent. (B) Then we have to convert it into standard format. And since both statements are universal positive, we dont need to worry about which statement to convert first? (that priority order, more about it, explained at the bottom of this article.) Second statement is universal positive (UP), according to our table, we can only convert it into particular positive (PP) therefore All singers (C) are intelligent. (B)==> Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.(C)

Now the new question statements, in the standard format (A to B then B to C) are 1. All poets are intelligent (B) 2. Some intelligent persons(B) are singers. Third step, classify the question statements question statement 1. All poets(A) are intelligent (B) 2. Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.(C) type Universal positive (UP) Particular positive (PP)

Fourth step, apply the combo rules. Since UPs politicians hate particular statements (both positive and negative), hence no conclusion can be drawn. That means we cannot connect A to C or C to A. Now check the Answer statements i. all singers(C) are poets (A)

False. UP+PP=no conclusion, as explained above. Check the second original question statement : All singers are intelligent. (Universal positive UP). According to our conversion table, UP can be converted into particular positive (PP) only. But this answer statement (II) is a particular negative statement. Hence this is also false.

ii. some intelligent persons are not singers

Final answer: (D) neither follows.

CAT-level
Same UP-UN Concept but they pack 3-4 or more syllogism questions into one question to test your speed, not just your understanding. for example:

DemoQ: Sweet Testing Apples (CAT)

given question has five statements followed by options containing three statements put together in a specific order. Choose the option which indicates a valid argument, where the third statement is a conclusion drawn from the preceding two statements. Question statements (CAT 1999) a. b. c. d. e. Apples are not sweet Some apples are sweet All sweets are tasty Some apples are not tasty No apple is tasty

answer choices 1. 2. 3. 4. cea bdc cbd eac solution and approach weve to check the given options one by one. Option (i). CEA. Meaning weve to take C as our statement (I), E as our Statement (II) and then observe, if statement (A) can be concluded from C and E. C All sweets are tasty E No apple is tasty. Universal positive Universal negative

A Apples are not sweet Universal negative In the actual CAT exam, we cannot afford to waste time in actually converting all statements and checking them. Here is the fast approach 1. three terms?= yes 2. in standard format? No. but we can convert second (UN) into another UN and then combo rule is UP+UN=UN. Hence this answer choice (CEA) is correct. Final answer (i) CEA

DemoQ: Working mother nurses (CAT)

question statement a. b. c. d. e. f. No mother is a nurse. Some Nurses like to work No woman is prude Some prude are also nurses Some nurses are women All women like to work answer choices 1. 2. 3. 4. ABE CED FEB BEF

Check the answer choices one by one. i. ABE A (Statement I) No mother is a nurse. (UN)

B (Statement II) Some Nurses like to work E (Conclusion) Some Nurses are women.

This is invalid. Because Statement I and II have three terms (Mother, Nurse and work) while given conclusion statement adds fourth new term women Move to next choice. ii. CED Statement C (Statement I) E (Statement II) No woman is prude Some nurses are women Some prude are also nurses Type Universal negative Particular positive

D (conclusion)

Particular positive

Question statements have three terms? Yes (women, prude, nurses) Are they in standard format (A to B then B to C?) nope. No woman(B) is prude Some nurses are women(B) Universal negative Particular positive

change position of first and second statement. 1. Some nurses(A) are women(B) 2. No woman(B) is prude(C) question statement type

1. Some nurses(A) are women(B) Particular positive (PP) 2. No woman(B) is prude(C) Apply the combo rules PP+UN=??

Universal negative (UN)

When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly negative or positive depending on the mood of universe. Hence PP+UN=PN.(A to C) So legitimate conclusion is Some Prune arenot nurses. But Check the given conclusion statement: Some prude are also nurses. It is Particular positive (PP). But According to conversion table, PN cannot be converted. So we cannot say that since Some prune are not nurses, that means some prunes are nurses! Therefore given answer choice(ii) CED is false because D cannot be concluded from C+E. Move to the next answer choice.

Actual thought process: three terms =yes. Standard form=no. rearrange. But PP+UN=PN, cant be converted to PP. Hence false. iii.FEB

Statement F (Statement I) All women like to work Some nurses are women Some nurses like to work

Type Universal positive UP Particular positive PP Particular positive PP

E (Statement II)

B (conclusion)

three terms =yes. Standard form=no. but no need to convert, just exchange position of statement I and II. Some nurses(A) are women(B) All women(B) like to work (C) Particular positive PP Universal positive UP

Apply combo rule, again same situation When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe. Hence PP+UP=PP.(A to C). Some nurses(A) like to work(C). Done! This is same as the given conclusion (B) Therefore, final answer is (iii) FEB.

DemoQ: 4 questions in 1!
This one is from CAT-1999. Each of the given question statement as three segments. Choose the alternative where third segment of the statement can be logically be used using the both preceding two but not just from one of them Question statements a. all dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures. Water buffaloes are not dinosaurs. Water buffaloes are not prehistoric creatures

b. all politicians are frank. No frank people are crocodiles. No crocodiles are politicians c. no diamond is quartz. No opal is quartz. Diamonds are opals. d. All monkeys like bananas. Some Joes like bananas. Some Joes are monkeys. Answer choice i. ii. iii. iv. Only C Only B Only A and D Only B and C Approach Three terms yes. Standard format =No.Both question statements are Universal negative. We can convert either of them, into UN or PN. But in any case, both question statements will remain negative. And Two negatives=no conclusion. So C is not possible. Hence answer choice (i) and (iv) eliminated. Already in three terms standard format.UP+UN=size enlarged and becomes UN. So conclusion should be No crocodile is politician so this statement is correct. Hence answer choice (ii).

C. Diamonds, Quartz, Opals.

B. Frank politicians and crocodiles

Final answer: (ii) only B. The End? No. Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost: just three more concepts before concluding the Two-Statement Syllogism

Special Conversions
Recall that when question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C), in that case weve to convert them according to conversion table. Here are some special cases.

Given Question statement

Conversion (all applicable to all given question statements) 1. All honest(people) are politicians 2. No non-politician is honest. 3. No honest (people) are non-politicians. 4. Some politicians are honest

Type

None but Politicians are honest. No one else but Politicians are honest. Only politicians are honest. Politicians alone are honest

UP

UN

PP

Second concept:

Complimentary pairs
Earlier we saw there are five no-conclusion combos 1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11th hour. 2. United Nations hates negativity of any type. (both Universal and particular) 3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody. 4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. 5. Two particulars=no conclusion. For example Question statement Conclusion Answer choice a. Only 1 follows 1. Some Politicians are male.2. Some males are honest. 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Politicians are honest.

b. Only 2 follows c. Either 1 or 2 follows d. Neither follows Apply the standard operating procedure: Three terms? Check: yes Are they in standard format? A to B then B to C? check. Yes Then classify the statements 1. Some Politicians(A) are males(B) Particular positive. 2. Some males(B) are honest(C) Particular positive.

From the given rules, Two particulars = No conclusion! But please observe one of the answer choice (C)= Either 1 or 2 follows. Consider these cases Case#2 Politicians 5. Sardar Patel 6. Lal Bahadur Shastri 7. Raja 8. Kalmadi 9. Sheila In this case#1: some politicians (Sardar and Shastri) are honest. So conclusion (1) may be possible. Case#2 Males honest

1. Sardar Patel 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri 3. Raja 4. Kalmadi 5. Bhagat Singh 6. ChandraSekhar Azad

1. Sardar Patel 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri 3. Bhagat Singh 4. ChandraSekhar Azad 5. Sarojini Naidu 6. Mother Teresa

Politicians 1. Raja 2. Kalmadi 3. Sheila

Males 1. 2. 3. 4. Raja Kalmadi Bhagat Singh ChandraSekhar Azad

honest 1. Bhagat Singh 2. ChandraSekhar Azad 3. Sarojini Naidu 4. Mother Teresa

In this case, No politician is honest. So conclusion (2) may be possible. Therefore answer becomes Either 1 or 2 follows Such syllogism-situations are called complementary. Youve to check following things, before thinking about complementary cases. 1. Two statements with three terms? Yes 2. Question statements are given in standard format (A to B Then B to C). if not, then rearrange or convert them. 3. Classify the statements (UP, UN, PP, PN) 4. Apply the rules. Get the answer. 5. If Step #4 gives No conclusion AND one of the answer choice is in the format of Either I or II follows, only then check for complemantary case. Checklist: complementary case 1. Two answer choices have same subject and predicate. Applicable 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Politicians are honestBecause both have common subject (politician) and common predicate (honest) Not applicable 1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Honest are Politicians.In first statement, subject=Politician but in second statement, subject= Honest. Hence complemantary case not possible.

2). The answer choice combo must be either of these three

Answer choice combo Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy (PN)

Example 1. All Politicians are honest. 2. Some Politicians arenot honest 1. Some Politicians are honest. 2. Some Politicians arenot honest 1. Some Politicians are honest. 2. No Politicians are honest

PP + Pritish Nandy (PN)

PP + United Nations (UN)

When these two conditions are met, then answer would be Either (I) or (II) follows.

Priority order
You know that when Question statements are not in standard format (A to B Then B to C), we must convert them. But here is a thing to keep in mind. Consider these statements Question statements: 1. All Dogs are Cats. 2. Some Dogs are Pigs. Common term or middle term is Dogs. So thats our B. 1. All Dogs(B) are Cats. 2. Some Dogs(B) are Pigs. We can convert it via two routes Route #1 Route #2 Well re-order the statements. (that is interchange thee position of both statements) 1. Some dogs(B) are pigs 2. All Dogs(B) are Cats Now well convert the first statement. 1. Some pigs are Dogs (B) (Rule: PP to PP)

Just convert the first statement. 1. Some Cats are dogs. (Rule: UP to PP) 2. Some Dogs are pigs.

2. All dogs (B) are cats. Both routes are valid. Now the question is, which route should be preferred? The priority order is: 1) Particular positive (PP) >> 2) Universal Negative (UN) >> 3) Universal Positive (UP) Note: weve not included Particular Negative (PN) in this order because PN cannot be converted. So according to this priority order PP>UN>UP, route #2 is the more suitable approach. (although such complications dont usually arise in most of the questions).

Tricky Situations: Priority order

Consider this scenario Question statements 1. All women(B) are birds 2. Some women(B) are tree Conclusion 1. Some birds are tree 2. All trees are bird.

As you can see, the question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C). So, which question statement to convert? First the wrong approach. Since question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C), hence well convert first statement. (UP to PP)After WR conversion O N G 1. Some birds(A) are women (B) 2. Some women(B) are tree Both question statements are particular, hence final answer=No conclusion. (please note: this approach is wrong, because weve not followed the priority order).

Now the correct approach

The priority order for Statement conversion is PP>UN>UP.Meaning, if there are two question statements, and weve to convert one of them to make it a standard format=> then well convert Particular positive statement first. So in the given case 1. All women(B) are birds 2. Some women(B) are tree CO R R E C T Convert second statement. (PP to PP) 1. All women(B) are birds. 2. Some trees are women(B). Now exchange positions of question statements 1. Some trees are women(B). (PP) 2. All women(B) are birds. (UP) Now theyre in standard format, apply combo rule: PP+UP=PP (Nasa telescope rule!) Hence conclusion is Some trees are birds. (PP) We can also say that Some birds are trees. (PP to PP conversion). Therefore answer is (1) Moral of the story: Conversion priority: PP>UN>UP. Especially when youre getting PP+PP= no conclusion after conversion.

Tricky Situations: 1-Statement Conclusion

Question statements 1. All the flowers are leaves.(B) (UP) 2. Some leaves(B) are birds (PP) Conclusion 1. Some birds are flowers 2. Some leaves are flowers

Question statement contains only three terms=yes.

Are they in standard format? (A To B then B to C?) =Yes. Apply combo rules: UP+PP=No conclusion because Uttar Pradeshs politicians hate particular statements. But heres the catch. Observe the conclusion statements carefully Conclusion statement 1. Some birds are flowers 2. Some leaves are flowers Thought process

Not possible because combo rule. first question statement says All flowers are leaves. If you apply the conversion rule UP->PP, thenAll flowers are leaves=> Some leaves are flowers. Hence this conclusion is correct, although it did not employ both question statements.

Moral of the story: Read terms (subject-predicate) of conclusion statements.

Summary
What to do when 2-statement syllogism question is given? 1. They must have only three terms (A, B and C) 2. Are the question statements in standard format (A to B then B to C)? if no, then refer to following conversion table. (important: priority order for conversion is PP>UN>UP.) Type Universal Positive (UP) Valid Conversion Only PP

Universal Negative (UN) PN or UN Particular Positive (PP) Only PP

Particular Negative (PN) Cant do.

3. Classify the Question statement (UP, UN, PP, PN) 4. Apply the combo rules on Question statements. No conclusion Yes conclusion 1. If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then its size doesnt increase. (UP+UP=UP) 2. If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then size increases and it becomes United Nations. (UP+UN=UN) 3. United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in very positive mood. But he meets another positive person, and his attitude is totally reversed- he becomes particularly negative! (reversed =C to A). (UN+UP/PP=PN) 4. When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe.(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN )

1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11th hour. (UP+PP/PN=NO) 2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular)(UN+UN/PN=NO ) 3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody. (first statement is PN=NO, Irrespective of second statement.) 4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. 5. Two particulars=no conclusion.

5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and either or given in answer, then check for Complimentary case. This concludes the discussion on 2 statement Syllogism question. In later article, well see the 3-statement syllogism. It is basically extention of the same UP-UN method that we learned here. However, to quickly solve 3-statements, first you must become a master of 2statement. So, practice as many sums as you can, from any of the following books.

Recap of 2-Statement syllogism

Before we understand the 3-statement syllogism, lets recap the 2statement trick just for refreshing your memory. What to do when 2-statement syllogism question is given? 1. They must have only three terms (A, B and C) 2. Are the question statements in standard format (A to B then B to C)? if no, then refer to following conversion table. (important: priority order for conversion is PP>UN>UP.) Type Universal Positive (UP) Valid Conversion Only PP

Universal Negative (UN) PN or UN Particular Positive (PP) Only PP

Particular Negative (PN) Cant do. 3. Classify the Question statement (UP, UN, PP, PN) 4. Apply the combo rules on Question statements. No conclusion scenario 1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI in retail until the 11th hour. (UP+PP/PN=NO) 2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular)(UN+UN/PN=NO ) possible conclusion scenario 1. If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then its size doesnt increase. (UP+UP=UP) 2. If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then size increases and it becomes United Nations. (UP+UN=UN) 3. United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in very positive mood. But he meets another positive person, and his attitude is totally reversed- he

3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody. (first statement is PN=NO, Irrespective of second statement.) 4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. 5. Two particulars=no conclusion.

becomes particularly negative! (reversed =C to A). (UN+UP/PP=PN) 4. When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of universe.(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN )

5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and either or given in answer, then check for Complimentary case. Now well see how to solve three-statement syllogism.

Parent Statements
The crux of 2-statement syllogism was I. II. When weve Question statements in standard format (A to B then B to C). We apply some combo rules and may get a conclusion in the form of A to C

(or we may get the conclusion in form of C to A, in case the question statements were in the format of UN+(UP/PP). Recall the Ban-kiMoons mood reversal). In case of three statement syllogism, we accept the conclusion statement (A to C) as valid, then try to find out its parents (those question statements A to B then B to C). Then, we try to get a valid conclusion out of those two-question statements and see if it matches with the given conclusion state in answer. No need to get confused, lets try with a simple scenario. question statement 1. All cats are dogs 2. some pigs are cats. conclusion statement 1. some tigers are cats 2. some pigs are tigers 3. all cats are tigers

3. All dogs are tigers Answer choices a. b. c. d. Only 1 and 2 Only 1, 2 and 3 All follow None Follow

4. some cats are not tigers

Start with first conclusion statement i) Some tigers are cats (PP) Q. if this is a valid conclusion, whore its parents? Ans. Thouse question statements with words tigers, cats, and a common term. You can see, first and third statement fits the bill. Q.statement 1. All cats(A) are dogs(B) 2. All dogs(B) are tigers(C)

Type UP UP

Three terms=Ofcourse yes. Are they in standard format (A to B then B to C)? Yes. Then what are you waiting for? Just apply the combo rules. UP meets UP then its size doesnt increase (UP+UP=UP) A to C. Hence conclusion will be All cats are tigers. (meaning given conclusion statement #3 is valid). If we convert this valid conclusion All cats are tigers (UP), then UP>PP= Some tigers are cats.

It means the given conclusion statement#1 is also valid. So far: 1 and 3 are correct. Now test the second conclusion statement.

Chain formula
ii) some pigs are tigers

if this is a valid conclusion, whore its parents? Ans. . Those question statements with words pigs, tigers, and a common term(B). But I dont see any such question statements. Now well have to apply chain formula. Meaning, (A to B1, then B1 to B2, then B2 to C). Consider this arrangement Question statements (CHAIN) 1. some pigs(A) are cats.(B1) 2. All cats(B1) are dogs(B2) 3. All dogs(B2) are tigers(C) Well take two statements at time and try to get an intermediate conclusion. Statement 1. some pigs(A) are cats.(B1) 2. All cats(B1) are dogs(B2) Type Particular positive (PP) Universal positive (UP) Pig to Cat, cat to dog and finally dog to tiger. Lets see if we connect pig to tiger. Chain

Three terms = yes Standard format= yes. (there A to B1 and then B1 to B2, which is just like A to B then B to C) Apply combo-rule PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to B2) Hence intermediate conclusion is Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2) Now take this intermediate conclusion with the next statement in our chain.

Question-statements

Type

Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2) Particular positive (PP) (derived) All dogs(B2) are tigers(C) Universal positive (UP) (given in question).

Again, same standard operating procedure of 2-statement syllogism. Three terms = yes Standard format= yes. (there A to B2 and then B2 to C, which is just like A to B then B to C) Apply combo-rule Again, PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to C) Therefore conclusion is Some pigs(A) are tigers (C). Voila! Second conclusion statement is also correct. So far 1, 2 and 3 are correct. Lets check the last statement (IV). iv) some cats are not tigers while we were checking the first conclusion statement, we had found that All cats are tigers (UP). Therefore, given conclusion statement is not possible. Final answer: only 1, 2 and 3 are correct. (option b)

DemoQ: Married Student Dancers (CSAT-2012)

Question statements 1. None but students are the members of the club. 2. Some members of the club are married. 3. All married persons are invited for dance. Which one of the conclusions can be drawn from the above statements? a. b. c. d. All students are invited for dance All married students are invited for dance All members of the club are married person None of the above conclusions can be drawn Solution and approach

first, rephrase the given statements so that processing becomes easier. Recall the special conversion rule from previous article on 2 statement. None but Politicians(A) are honest(B)=> All honest(B) are politicians(A) (Universal positive) Im replacing the word members of the club with clubmembers. Thus simplified version of the given question is following Answer statements a) All students are invited for danceb) All married students are invited for dance c) All club-members are married. d) None of the above conclusions can be drawn

Question statements

1. All clubmembers are students.2. Some clubmembers are married. 3. All married are invited for Dance.

Ok now what? Weve to pick up the answer statement one by one and test them. a) All students are invited for dance there are two ways to solve this statement, first the longcut method Whore the parents of this conclusion statement? No direct parents. Weve to apply chainrule. Question statements 1. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A) 2. Some clubmembers(B1) are married.(B2) Chain rule Well try to link studentsclubmembers-married-dance invitation.

3. All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C) Lets start. First two statements 1. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A) 2. Some clubmembers(B1) are married.(B2) UP PP

Standard format? Nope. Conversion needed: yes. But priority order=PP>UN>UP. Means well convert the second statement (particular positive) 1. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A) 2. Some married (B2) are clubmembers(B1). UP PP converted to PP.

Theyre still not in standard format. So Exchange positions 1. Some married (B2) are clubmembers(B1). 2. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A) PP converted to PP. UP

Ok now theyre in standard format. Apply the combo rule. PP+UP=PP (NASA Mood change) Some married are students. This is our intermediate conclusion. Now pair it up with third question statement from the chain rule Some married(B2) are students(A) PP

All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C) UP Standard format? Nope. Then convert!

Some students(A) are married(B2)

PP

All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C) UP Ok now in standard format (A to B then B to C) Apply combo rule PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change again!) Conclusion = Some students are invited for dance. (PP) But the given answer statement says All students are invited for dance(UP)=impossible. Hence first answer choice is eliminated. Shortcut

You see the conclusion statement says all students are invited for Dance. (univ.positive statement). When do we get universal positive statement as conclusion.? Only when UP+UP=UP. If we apply the chain-rule, well encounter one particular positive (PP). And thatll ruin the mood (because whenever particular positive statement comes, the conclusion is either

1. PP+UP=Particular positive (NASA mood change) OR 2. UP+PP=No conclusion. (UP politicians hate particular statements).

Hence we can never get a Universal positive (UP) type of conclusion, in either case! Means this answer choice is invalid by default! No need to manully apply chain rule here. Anyways, Move to the next answer choice b) All married students are invited for dance

superficially this statement contains three terms. 1. Married 2. Student 3. Dance Wait a minute! Our syllogism conclusions contain only two terms (e.g. All dogs are cats.) So, how can we apply syllogism here? Well, if you observe carefully, the syllogism rules are still applicable in

this conclusion statement containing three terms. From the longcut method in previous option, weve found that Some students are invited for dance. (PP)

Question: which students are invited? Well, we eliminated the middle-term (B2) Married. Means all married students are invited for dance. (this represents the intersecting area between two Venn Diagram circles). Therefore, we can say All married students are invited for dance. Hence Answer is (B). c) All club-members are married.(UP)

The second question statement says, Some clubmembers are married. (PP). A particular positive statement can be converted into only PP. Hence we cannot say for sure that all club members are married. Hence this answer choice is incorrect.

DemoQ: Rich n Sick Air travellers (CSAT-2012)

Question Statements 1. None but the rich ran afford air-travel. 2. Some of those who travel by air become sick 3. Some of those who become sick require treatment Conclusion statements a. b. c. d. All the rich persons travel by air. Those who travel by air become sick All the rich persons become sick. All those who travel by air are rich Solution

first we will simplify the given statements. Recall the special conversion rule from earlier article on 2statement syllogism. None but Politicians(A) are honest.(B)=> All honest(B) are politicians(A) (Universal positive) Similarly, None but the rich ran afford air-travel=> All airtravellers are rich. (UP).

That means, Correct answer is (D). Case is over. But just for concept clarity, lets test remaining answer choices as well. Simplified Answer statements a. b. c. d. All rich are air-travellers. (all) air travellers are sick All rich are sick. All air-travellers are are rich.

Simplified question statements 1. All air-travellers are rich. 2. Some air travellers are sick. 3. Some sick are treatment. Now lets solve

a. All rich are airtravellers.

The given question statement is All air-travellers(A) are rich.(B)(UP). Apply the conversion here, UP=>PP. Hence Some rich(B) are airtravellers(A).Therefore, first answer choice is incorrect. Question statement #2 says Some air travellers are sick. (PP). cant convert to UP.Hence this option is also incorrect. c) All rich are sick.

b. (all) air travellers are sick

Q.If this is the conclusion statement, then who are its parents? Ans. Those question statements which contain the terms rich, sick, along with a common middle term. From the given question statements, following two fit the bill 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich UP

2. Some air travellers(B) are sick PP Approach #1 (shortcut) Please observe: All rich are sick.= Universal positive statement. When do we get UP conclusion? Only when combo rule UP+UP=UP

is applied. Now in above case, one question statement is PP. so itll kill the mood. UP conclusion is not possible. (no need to convert any statement.) Approach #2 (longcut) 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(A) UP

2. Some air travellers(B) are sick.(C) PP As you can see, there is one middle term (air travellers). But the question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C). It means, we must convert anyone statement. But priority for conversion is PP>UN>UP. So we will convert second statement. Some air-travellers are sick (PP)==convert==> Some sick are airtravellers(B) 1. All air-travellers(B) are rich. UP

2. Some sick are air-travellers(B) PP But they are still not in standard format (A to B then B to C). well no problem, just exchange position of question statements 1.Some sick(A) are air-travellers(B) PP 2. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(C) UP

Apply the Combo-rule. PP+UP=PP (NASA Mood change). Hence Some sick(A) are rich.(C). (PP) If we convert it then Some rich are sick. (PP convert to PP). But answer choice says All rich are sick.= this is not possible. Therefore, third answer choice is also incorrect.

DemoQ: Drug addict Artists (CSAT-2012)

Question statements 1. All artists are whimsical. 2. Some artists are drug addicts. 3. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. From the above three statements it may be concluded that: a. b. c. d. Artists are frustrated Some drug addicts are whimsical All frustrated people are drug addicts. Whimsical people are generally frustrated

Statement 3 says Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. For our purpose this is a Particular positive (PP) statement. Lets simplify it to Some frustrated people are drug addicts Now start with answer (A) a) (all) Artists are frustrated (UP) if this is the answer, then what could be the question statements? The question statements could be those statements where the words Artist and frustrated come along with a common middle-term (B) Consider these question statements: 2. Some artists are drug addicts.(B) PP

3. Some Frustrated people are drug addicts.(B) PP Although this in not in standard format, but even when we convert one of them (PP->PP), well be left with PP+PP=no conclusion. Hence move to next option. b) Some drug addicts are whimsical

if this is the answer, then what could be the question statements? The question statements could be those statements where the words drug addict and whimsical come along with a common middle-term (B) Consider these question statements:

1. All artists (B) are whimsical.

UP

2. Some artists (B) are drug addicts. PP

Three terms = yes. Standard format (A to B then B to C)=No. So maybe to convert anyone know the statement. according to the priority order PP>UN>UP, we must convert second statement. UP

1. All artists (B) are whimsical.

2. Some drug addicts are artists (B). PP->PP converted. Now interchange position of question statement 1 and 2. Some drug addicts(A) are artists (B). PP->PP converted. All artists (B) are whimsical.(C)

UP

Okay now what? Apply the combo rules PP+UP=PP. (NASA mood change). Thus final answer is some drug addicts are whimsical. (option B)

For the archive of all [Aptitude] articles, visit Mrunal.org/aptitude.