Explanation

Analysis of the Statements

1. All children are silly people.
   • This means every child falls into the category of silly people.
2. Some silly people are rich people.
   • This indicates there is an overlap between silly people and rich people. However, it does not specify which silly people are rich.
3. All rich people are big shots.
   • This means every rich person is also a big shot.

Analyzing Each Conclusion

Conclusion I: Some silly people are children.

• From Statement 1, we know that all children are silly people. Thus, there must be an overlap between children and silly people.
• Therefore, this conclusion is necessarily true.

Conclusion II: Some rich people are children.

• We know from Statement 1 that all children are silly people, and from Statement 2 that some silly people are rich people.
• However, there is no direct evidence that the rich people who are silly are necessarily children. It only tells us that some silly people (not specifically children) are rich.
• Therefore, this conclusion is not necessarily true.

Conclusion III: Some silly people are big shots.

• From Statement 2, we know that some silly people are rich people.
• From Statement 3, we know that all rich people are big shots.
• Therefore, the silly people who are rich are also big shots.
• Thus, this conclusion is necessarily true.

(Option A) I and III:

Correct. Both conclusions I and III are necessarily true based on the given statements.

(Option B) II:

Incorrect. Conclusion II is not necessarily true as explained above.

(Option C) II and III:

Incorrect. While conclusion III is true, conclusion II is not necessarily true.

(Option D) I and II:

Incorrect. Conclusion I is true, but conclusion II is not necessarily true.

Subject: Logical Reasoning

Topic: Logical Problems

Subtopic: Logical Reasoning and Syllogisms

Difficulty Level: Easy

Top of Form

Explanation

Given the conditions:

1. X, Y, and Z are three whole numbers less than 31 but greater than 23.
2. X is a prime number.
3. Y is the largest odd number smaller than 35.
4. Z is the smallest even number.

(Option B) X is 29, Y is 29, and Z is 24:

1. X = 29 (fits the condition)
2. Y = 29 (fits the condition)
3. Z = 24 (fits the condition)
4. X is a prime number (29 is a prime number).
5. Y is the largest odd number smaller than 35 (29 is the largest odd number smaller than 35).
6. Z is the smallest even number (24 is the smallest even number).

Given that all conditions are satisfied in Option B, it is the correct answer.

(Option A): X is 31, Y is 29, and Z is 24:

1. X cannot be 31 because it violates the condition that X must be less than 31.
2. Y is correct as 29 is the largest odd number smaller than 35.
3. Z is correct as 24 is the smallest even number.

(Option C): X is 23, Y is 29, and Z is 24:

1. X cannot be 23 because it does not meet the condition that X must be greater than 23.
2. Y is correct as 29 is the largest odd number smaller than 35.
3. Z is correct as 24 is the smallest even number.

(Option D): X is 27, Y is 31, and Z is 26:

1. X cannot be 27 because it is not a prime number.
2. Y cannot be 31 because Y should be the largest odd number smaller than 35, and 31 is not smaller than 35.
3. Z cannot be 26 because it is not the smallest even number.

Subject: Logical Reasoning

Topic: Logical Problems

Subtopic: Number Properties and Logic

Difficulty Level: Moderate

Explanation

 Given Sequence:

1. SSSSS
2. SSRSS
3. SRQRS
4. RQPQR

Analyzing the Pattern:

1. SSSSS
2. SSRSS
   • Change: The third character changes from 'S' to 'R'.
3. SRQRS
   • Changes: The second character changes from 'S' to 'R' and the fourth character changes from 'S' to 'Q'.
4. RQPQR
   • Changes: The first character changes from 'S' to 'R', the second character changes from 'R' to 'Q', and the fifth character changes from 'S' to 'R'.

Observing the Changes:

• Each term in the sequence changes multiple characters from the previous term.
• The changes are not entirely random but follow a backward alphabetic progression for certain positions.

Predicting the Next Term:

Let's apply the observed pattern to predict the next term after "RQPQR."

RQPQR

• Change the first character: R → Q
• Change the second character: Q → P
• Change the third character: P → O
• Fourth and fifth characters remain the same (following the observed changes).

This gives us "QPOPQ".

Evaluating Each Option

(Option D) QPOPQ:

• Changes the first character from 'R' to 'Q', the second character from 'Q' to 'P', and the third character from 'P' to 'O'. The fourth and fifth characters remain the same, which follows the observed pattern.
• Correct: This option follows the logical progression of changes and maintains the sequence length.

 (Option A)  RQOQR:

• Changes only the third character from 'P' to 'O'. Does not follow the observed changes for the first, second, and fourth characters.
• Incorrect: It does not match the expected changes based on the pattern.

(Option B) QRORQ:

• Changes the first character from 'R' to 'Q' and the third character from 'P' to 'O', but changes the second character from 'Q' to 'R', which does not fit the observed pattern.
• Incorrect: It does not align with the consistent changes observed in the pattern.

(Option C)  RQPOPQR:

• Adds an additional character 'O' in the middle, disrupting the sequence length.
• Incorrect: The length of the sequence should remain consistent with the previous terms.

Subject: Logical Reasoning

Topic: Letters & Symbol Series

Subtopic: Pattern Recognition

Difficulty Level: Hard

Explanation

(Option D) Neither I nor II:

• Neither yelling nor punishing is a constructive way to respond to a toddler's genuine accident.
• A more effective response would be to comfort the child, explain the situation calmly, and guide them on how to handle fragile items carefully in the future.
• This option is correct because it recognizes that accidents happen and the goal should be to teach and guide the child in a supportive manner.

(Option A) I:

• Yelling at a toddler for an accident is not productive. Toddlers are young children who are still learning about their environment and their motor skills are not fully developed.
• Yelling can create fear and anxiety rather than understanding. It is not a constructive way to teach a child to be careful.
• This course of action is incorrect because it does not provide a supportive or educational response to an accident.

(Option B) II:

• Punishing a toddler for a genuine accident is also not productive. Accidents happen as part of the learning process, and punishment can create negative associations with learning and exploration.
• A better approach would be to calmly explain the situation and help the child understand the importance of being careful, in a way that is appropriate for their age and development.
• This course of action is incorrect because punishment for an accidental behavior does not teach the child effectively and can have negative psychological effects.

(Option C) Both I and II:

• Combining yelling and punishment, both of which are negative and non-constructive responses, is not advisable. These actions are more likely to instill fear rather than understanding and caution.
• This option is incorrect because both actions are not worth pursuing for the reasons outlined above.

Subject: Logical Reasoning

Topic: Course of Action

Subtopic: Logical Decision Making

Difficulty Level: Easy

Explanation

(Option B) I is the cause and II is its effect:

• This option suggests that the introduction of rehabilitation schemes (I) caused the decrease in crime rates (II).
• This is a logical cause and effect relationship. Rehabilitation schemes such as free education, job search help, and help groups for addicts can provide people with better opportunities and support, which can lead to a decrease in crime rates.
• Therefore, this option is correct.

(Option A) II is the cause and I is its effect:

• This option suggests that the decrease in crime rates (II) caused the implementation of rehabilitation schemes (I).
• This is unlikely because typically, rehabilitation schemes are introduced as a proactive measure to address issues like high crime rates. It does not make logical sense for the reduction in crime to lead to the creation of rehabilitation programs.
• Therefore, this option is incorrect.

(Option C) I and II are effects of some common cause:

• This option suggests that both the implementation of rehabilitation schemes (I) and the decrease in crime rates (II) are effects of a common cause.
• While it is possible that a common cause (such as a new government policy focused on improving social conditions) could lead to both actions, the statements provided do not suggest or provide evidence for a common cause.
• Given the direct relationship between rehabilitation schemes and crime rates, this option is less direct and therefore not the best choice.
• Therefore, this option is incorrect.

(Option D) I and II are both effects of independent causes:

• This option suggests that the implementation of rehabilitation schemes (I) and the decrease in crime rates (II) are independent of each other and caused by different factors.
• This is less likely given that rehabilitation schemes are typically designed to reduce issues such as crime rates. It makes more sense that the decrease in crime rates is directly related to the introduction of the rehabilitation schemes.
• Therefore, this option is incorrect.

Subject: Logical Reasoning

Topic: Cause & Effect

Difficulty Level: Moderate