Statement: About 50% of animal by products, hair, skin, horn etc. is edible protein. Indian chemists have developed a method of isolating 45% of this protein. They used an enzyme developed in Japan to break down soya protein.
Conclusions:
I. Indian have not been able to develop enzymes.
II. If an economically feasible process is developed there would be plenty of edible protein available.
Explanation:
Conclusion I does not follow because using an enzyme developed in Japan does not imply Indians cannot develop enzymes. Conclusion II is not directly supported; the statement only mentions isolation of protein, not about economic feasibility leading to plenty of protein.
Statements:
1. All roses are flowers.
2. Some flowers are red.
Conclusions:
I. Some roses are red.
II. All red things are flowers.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
Roses are inside the flower circle, and the red circle intersects the flower circle. However, there's no guarantee the red circle intersects the rose circle specifically. Thus, I does not follow. II is a reversal of a 'some' statement, which is invalid.
Statements:
1. No student is a teacher.
2. All teachers are principals.
Conclusions:
I. No student is a principal.
II. Some principals are teachers.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
While no student is a teacher, the principal category could still encompass students outside of the teacher category. Therefore, I does not strictly follow. Since all teachers are principals, it is a fact that some principals are teachers (Conclusion II).
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!