Wiley Edge Syllogism Quiz-1

The given statements do not provide any direct relationship between cats and birds. Therefore, we cannot conclude that all cats are birds (conclusion I).
Similarly, the given statements do not provide any direct relationship between birds and fish. Therefore, we cannot conclude that some birds are fish (conclusion II).
Hence, neither conclusion I nor II follows.

Conclusion I: Some living beings are cats.
From the given statements and the Venn diagram, we can see that there is a definite overlap between the categories of living beings and cats. Therefore, it is true that some living beings are cats. Hence, Conclusion I follows.
Conclusion II: All cats being living beings is a possibility.
From the Venn diagram, we can see that all cats fall within the category of living beings. Therefore, it is true that all cats are living beings. Hence, Conclusion II follows.

To evaluate the given conclusions, let's analyze each one based on the provided statements:
I. Some books are not erasers.
There is no direct information in the statements that establishes a relationship between books and erasers. While it is true that some books are pens and all pencils are erasers, we cannot deduce that some books are not erasers. Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.
II. No eraser is a pen.
The statements tell us that no pen is a pencil, and all pencils are erasers. However, there is no direct information about the relationship between erasers and pens. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no eraser is a pen. Conclusion II also does not follow.
Hence, neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows from the given statements.

I. No fast car is a truck - This conclusion follows from the given statements. If no expensive car is a truck, and all fast cars are expensive, then it implies that no fast car can be a truck.
II. Some expensive cars are blue - This conclusion follows from the given statements. Since some cars are blue and all fast cars are expensive, it implies that there are expensive cars that are blue.
III. Some blue cars are not trucks - This conclusion also follows from the given statements. If no expensive car is a truck and there are blue cars, it implies that there are blue cars that are not trucks.

Conclusion I: No lazy creature is a dog - This conclusion can be determined from the given statements. From statement 2 that all dogs are playful and statement 3 that all playful creatures are not lazy we conclude that no dog is lazy.
Conclusion II: No cat is lazy - This conclusion does not follows logically from the statements. Since all dogs are playful and no playful creature is lazy, it cannot be concluded that a cat, which is not a dog, cannot be lazy.
Conclusion III: Some playful creatures are not cats - This conclusion follows logically from the statements. Since some cats are not dogs, and all dogs are playful, it can be inferred that there are playful creatures that are not cats.

No apple is a peach. This can be represented as: Apples ∩ Peaches = Ø (There is no intersection between the sets of apples and peaches)
All peaches are pineapples. This can be represented as: Peaches ⊆ Pineapples (The set of peaches is a subset of the set of pineapples)
Conclusion I: All mangoes are pineapples. There is no direct information given about the relationship between mangoes and peaches or mangoes and apples. We cannot conclude that all mangoes are pineapples based on the given statements. Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.
Conclusion II: Some pineapples are apples. Since there is no intersection between the sets of apples and peaches (from statement 1), we cannot conclude that some pineapples are apples.

From the given statements, we can conclude that no cat can be a flyer because no mammal is a bird and all birds are flyers. Therefore, conclusion I follows. However, there is no information provided about the possibility of all mammals being flyers, so conclusion II does not follow.

Conclusion I: All boats being planes is a possibility. There is no direct information provided about the relationship between boats and planes in the given statements. Therefore, we cannot conclude that all boats being planes is a possibility. Conclusion I does not follow.
Conclusion II: At least some bikes are planes. The given statements do not provide any direct information about the relationship between bikes and planes. Since we have no information to support or contradict the claim that at least some bikes are planes, we cannot conclude that Conclusion II follows.

Conclusion I: Some chairs are tables. Since the first statement states that no tables are chairs, we cannot conclude that some chairs are tables. Conclusion I does not follow.
Conclusion II: No lamps are tables. There is no direct information given about the relationship between lamps and tables in the statements. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no lamps are tables. Conclusion II does not follow.
Conclusion III: No lamps are chairs. The third statement states that some desks are lamps, but there is no information provided about the relationship between chairs and lamps. We cannot conclude that no lamps are chairs. Conclusion III does not follow.