Statements Some vehicles are cars. Some cars are trucks. All trucks are sedans. Conclusions I. All vehicles being sedans is a possibility. II. At least some cars are sedans. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statements Some vehicles are cars. Some cars are trucks. All trucks are sedans. Conclusions I. All vehicles being sedans is a possibility. II. At least some cars are sedans.

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 01.36 am

from the above statements the following venn can be drawn and hence we can say that both the given conclusions are true

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->Assume there are 4 file servers each with a 95 chance of being up at any instant. Probability of at least one being available is :....

QA->District with least number of vehicles?....

QA->"All are one Self-fratenity such being the dictum to avow, In such a light how can we take life and devoid of least pity go on to eat" - Who said?....

QA->Statements of affairs method is called or known as _____ method.....

MCQ->Statements Some vehicles are cars. Some cars are trucks. All trucks are sedans. Conclusions I. All vehicles being sedans is a possibility. II. At least some cars are sedans.....

MCQ-> In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically commonly follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer a: if only conclusion I follows. Give answer b: if only conclusion II follows. Give answer c: if either conclusion I or II follows. Give answer d: if both conclusions I and II follow. Give answer e: if neither conclusion I nor II follows.Statements: All buses are cars. Some buses are trucks. Conclusions: I. Some buses are definitely not trucks. II. At least some trucks are cars.....

MCQ->Statements:Some beads are chairs. All chairs are trucks. Some trucks are bricks. All bricks are cars. Conclusions:I.Some cars are chairs. II.Some cars are trucks. III.Some trucks are beads.....

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 cars are jeeps. All jeeps are buses. All buses are trucks. Conclusions I.All trucks are buses. II.All buses are jeeps. III.All jeeps are cars. IV.All cars are trucks.....