Question
Statement : No cup is a saucer.
Some saucer are cubes. All plates are cubes. Conclusion : I. Some cubes are not cups.. II. At least some saucers are cups. III. No saucer is a plate. In each question below are given three statements followed by three conclusions numbered I, II and III. You have to take the three given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Solution
No cup is a saucer (E) + Some saucer are cubes (I) ⇒ Some cubes are not cups.(O*) . Hence conclusion I follows. No cup is a saucer (E) ⇒ Conversion ⇒ No saucer is a cup(E). Hence conclusion II does not follow. Some saucer are cubes (I) + Some cubes are plates (I) ⇒ No conclusion. Hence conclusion III does not follow.
As per section 201 of the Contract Act an agency is terminated by___________________
Which of the following a not a secondary evidence?
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Chetan v. The State of Karnataka established a critical principle regarding circumstantial evidence. The cas...
Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act provides that in a suit for specific performance of a contract _____________________
Which of the following as per Competition Act, 2002 is exempted as anti-competitive agreement?
A. copyright
B. patent
C. trad...
Who is referred to as the “Data Principal” under the Act?
As per Explanation 5 of Section 46, in abetment by conspiracy, which of the following is not necessary?
The establishment, recognition and application of common sanitary and phytosanitary measures by Members is called
Doctrine of part-performance is covered under which section of the Transfer of Property Act?
The "Golden Rule" of interpretation of statutes is also known as:
Relevant for Exams:
