Statement A: All lawyers are educated. Statement B: Some educated people are not lawyers. Statement C: Therefore, some lawyers are not educated. Which is the BEST critique?
AThe argument is inductively strong
BThe argument is valid because A and B are consistent
CThe conclusion does not follow from A; A entails that ALL lawyers are educated, so 'some lawyers are not educated' contradicts A and cannot be inferred
DThe conclusion follows by modus tollens
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. The conclusion does not follow from A; A entails that ALL lawyers are educated, so 'some lawyers are not educated' contradicts A and cannot be inferred
Categorical syllogism analysis: A: All L are E. The conclusion 'Some L are not E' directly contradicts A. Statement B about 'some E are not L' tells us about non-lawyers who are educated and is irrelevant to whether all lawyers are educated.
Related questions
Odd man out: APPLE, MANGO, BANANA, POTATOIn a series 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ?, the next prime isIf A=1, B=2, C=3, ..., the value of PEN isOdd man out: 9, 16, 24, 36, 49, 64Find next: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ?Find next term: 8, 27, 64, 125, ?If the code for TEACHER is VGCEJGT, the code for STUDENT will beFind the missing term: 5, 9, 17, 33, 65, ?