|
35.
|
Statements: Some dogs are rats. All
rats are trees. Some trees are not dogs.
Conclusions:
I.
Some
trees are dogs.
II.
All
dogs are trees.
III.
All
rats are dogs.
IV.
No
tree is dog.
|
|
A.
|
None follows
|
|
B.
|
Only I follows
|
|
C.
|
Only I and II follow
|
|
D.
|
Only II and III follow
|
|
E.
|
All follow
|
|
Answer: Option B
Explanation:
Some dogs are rats. All rats are trees.
Since one premise is particular, the
conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it
follows that 'Some dogs are trees'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so
it holds.
All rats are trees. Some trees are not dogs.
Since the middle term 'trees' is not
distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.