Question
In the question below some statements are given
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 statements and then decide which of the given conclusion definitely follows from the given statements, disregarding the commonly known facts. Statements: Few Lamp is Post. All Post is Lighter. No Post is Cook. All Cook is Top. Conclusions: I. Few Lighter is not Cook. II. No Post is Top. III. Few Top is Lighter. IV. Few Lamp is Lighter.Solution
No Post is Cook (E) β Conversion β No Cook is Post (E) + All Post is Lighter (A) β Some Lighter are not Cook (O*). Hence conclusion I follows. No Post is Cook (E) + All Cook is Top (A) β Some Top are not Post (O*). Hence conclusion II does not follow. Some Lighter are not Cook (O*) + All Cook is Top (A) β No conclusion. Hence conclusion III does not follow. Some Lamp is Post (I) + All Post is Lighter (A) β Some Lamp are Lighter (I). Hence conclusion IV follows.
The case of Kailash Sharma vs. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.______?
Rule of Estoppel is contained in Section β¦β¦β¦. Of Indian Evidence Act
Which of the following statements best describes the principle of progressive taxation?
A is accused of murder of B by pistol alleged to by purchased on 10 August at Lucknow. A makes statement that on 10 August he was at Bhopal not at Luckn...
As per the definition of deposit given under Companies Act, 2013 it does not include ________________
The doctrine of election and apportionment are laid down in which of the following Section of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 ________.
What must a party do if they intend to challenge an arbitrator and there is no agreement on the matter?
Part IV A of the Indian Constitution deals with_________________
Where a valuation is required to be made in respect of any assets or net worth of a company or its liabilities under the Companies Act, it shall be val...
Which convention provides protection to prisoners of war under International Humanitarian Law?