Statements : Some chairs are tables. Some beds are tables. No furniture is bed. Conclusions : I. All chairs being furniture is a possibility. II. Some tables are not bed is a possibility. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statements : Some chairs are tables. Some beds are tables. No furniture is bed. Conclusions : I. All chairs being furniture is a possibility. II. Some tables are not bed is a possibility.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->…………….means the annual financial statements and other statements prescribed under Rule 65 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules, 2011?....

QA->The cost of 2 tables and 8 chairs is Rs.400, the cost of a table is :....

QA->The prices of a table and a chair are in the ration 4:The cost of 2 tables and 8 chairs is Rs.400, the cost of a table is :....

QA->Formation of pot holes in river beds is an example of thing?....

QA->Consider a Program Graph (PG) with statements as nodes and control as edges. Which of the following is not true for any PG?....

MCQ->Statements : Some chairs are tables. Some beds are tables. No furniture is bed. Conclusions : I. All chairs being furniture is a possibility. II. Some tables are not bed is a possibility.....

MCQ->Statements : Some chairs are tables. Some beds are tables. No furniture is bed. Conclusions : I. Some tables are not furniture. II. All tables being furniture is a possibility.....

MCQ-> In each question below are given three statements followed by four conclusions I II III and IV You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follow from given statements disregarding commonly Known factsStatements Some books are pens. All pens are chairs. Some chairs are tables. Conclusions I.Some books are chairs. II.Some chairs are books. III.All tables are chairs. Iv.Some tables are chairs.....

MCQ-> In each of the question below are given three statements followed by three conclusions numbered I, II III. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from three given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Then decide which of the answer 1),2),3),4) and 5) is the correct answer and indicate it on the answersheet.Statements: Some desks are chairs. All chairs are tables. Some tables are mats. Conclusions:I.Some mats are desks. II.Some tables are desks. III.Some mats are chairs.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questionsThere is an essential and irreducible ‘duality’ in the normative conceptualization of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her ‘agency’, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her ‘well-being’. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self- interested motivation, in which a person’s agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the person’s agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of one’s agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting. To recognize the distinction between the ‘agency aspect’ and the ‘well-being aspect’ of a person does not require us to take the view that the person’s success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a person’s well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation. The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility - based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well- being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true expect:
....