Statements: All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers. All wells are springs. Conclusions: Some springs are oceans. Some wells are rivers. Some rivers are oceans. No well is river. p> ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statements: All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers. All wells are springs. Conclusions: Some springs are oceans. Some wells are rivers. Some rivers are oceans. No well is river.

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->Who is the author of “All’s Well that Ends Well”?....

QA->Who is the author of All's Well that Ends Well ?....

QA->Who is the author of “All's Well that Ends Well”?....

QA->Who is the author of the book "All is Well that Ends Well " ?....

MCQ->Statements: All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers. All wells are springs. Conclusions: Some springs are oceans. Some wells are rivers. Some rivers are oceans. No well is river.

....

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:
....

MCQ->Statements : All taps are wells. Some wells are canals. All canals are rivers. Conclusions : I. Some rivers are taps. II. Some wells are rivers.....

MCQ->Two completely penetrating wells are located L (in metres) apart, in homogeneous confined aquifer. The drawdown measured at the mid point between the two wells (at a distance of 0.5 L from both the wells) is 2.0 m when only the first well is being pumped at the steady rate of Q1 m3/sec. When both the wells are being pumped at identical steady rate of Q2 m3/sec, the drawdown measured at the same location is 8, 0 m. It may be assumed that the drawdown at the wells always remains at 10.0 m when being pumped and the radius of influence is larger than 0.5 L Q1/Q2 is equal to....

MCQ->ln the following question, two statements are given followed by four conclusions. Taking the given statements to be true, decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements:Statements: Some rivers are plateau. No plateau is mountain. Conclusions: I. Some plateau are rivers. II.Some mountains are rivers. III.Some rivers are not mountains. IV. All mountains are rivers.....