Question 1

All flowers are plants. All plants need water. Based on these statements, which conclusion must be true?

A) All flowers need water
B) Some flowers need water
C) No flowers need water
D) Water is needed by all living things

Accepted Answer

This is a straightforward categorical syllogism with two universal affirmative premises. The middle term 'plants' correctly links flowers to the property of needing water. By the transitive property of 'All', if all flowers are plants AND all plants need water, then all flowers must need water.

Question 2

All teachers are educated. Some educated people are kind. Based on these statements, which of the following conclusions is definitely true?

A) All teachers are kind
B) Some teachers are kind
C) No teachers are kind
D) Either all teachers are kind or no teachers are kind

Accepted Answer

This is a classic syllogism testing whether students can distinguish between 'All' and 'Some' premises. The first premise establishes that all teachers belong to the 'educated' category. The second premise states that only SOME educated people are kind—meaning not all educated people are kind. Since we don't know which educated people are kind, we cannot conclude anything definite about teachers. No valid conclusion can be drawn.

Question 3

No reptiles are mammals. All snakes are reptiles. Which of the following conclusions is valid?

A) All snakes are mammals
B) Some snakes are mammals
C) No snakes are mammals
D) Some snakes are not mammals

Accepted Answer

This syllogism uses a negative premise (No reptiles are mammals) combined with a universal affirmative (All snakes are reptiles). By the rules of categorical logic, when we have 'No X are Y' and 'All Z are X', we can validly conclude 'No Z are Y'. Since snakes are reptiles and no reptiles are mammals, no snakes can be mammals.

Question 4

Some doctors are surgeons. All surgeons are highly skilled. Which of the following conclusions is definitely valid?

A) All doctors are highly skilled
B) Some doctors are highly skilled
C) No doctors are highly skilled
D) All highly skilled people are surgeons

Accepted Answer

The first premise uses 'Some' (a particular statement), which means only a portion of doctors are surgeons. The second premise states all surgeons are highly skilled. We can only conclude that the doctors who ARE surgeons are highly skilled, meaning SOME doctors are highly skilled. We cannot conclude anything about doctors who are not surgeons.

Question 5

Read the following statements carefully and answer the question.

Statements:
1. All teachers are educated.
2. Some educated people are not disciplined.
3. No disciplined person is lazy.

Which of the following conclusions is definitely true?

A) All teachers are disciplined.
B) Some teachers are lazy.
C) Either all teachers are disciplined OR some teachers are not disciplined.
D) No teacher is lazy.

Accepted Answer

This is a syllogism question testing the ability to derive valid conclusions from multiple premises using the All/Some/No framework.

Question 6

Statements:
1. All politicians are ambitious.
2. No ambitious person is humble.
3. Some honest people are not ambitious.

Which conclusion logically follows?
(A) Some honest people are politicians.
(B) Some honest people are not politicians.
(C) All politicians are honest.
(D) No honest people are ambitious.

Accepted Answer

From Statement 1: Politicians ⊆ Ambitious. From Statement 2: Ambitious ∩ Humble = ∅. From Statement 3: Some honest people are not ambitious (∃ Honest ∉ Ambitious). Since politicians are ambitious, and some honest people are not ambitious, those honest people who are not ambitious cannot be politicians. Therefore: Some honest people are not politicians.

Question 7

Statements:
1. All athletes are disciplined.
2. No lazy person is disciplined.
3. Some students are lazy.

Which of the following conclusions is valid?
(A) Some students are athletes.
(B) Some students are not athletes.
(C) All students are lazy.
(D) No students are disciplined.

Accepted Answer

From Statement 1: Athletes ⊆ Disciplined. From Statement 2: Lazy ∩ Disciplined = ∅ (No overlap). From Statement 3: Some students are lazy (∃ Students ∈ Lazy). Since lazy persons are NOT disciplined, and athletes ARE disciplined, lazy persons cannot be athletes. Therefore, those students who are lazy are not athletes. Conclusion: Some students are not athletes.

Question 8

Statements:
1. All doctors are educated.
2. Some educated people are not wealthy.
3. All wealthy people are confident.

Which of the following conclusions is definitely valid?
(A) Some doctors are not confident.
(B) Some doctors are not wealthy.
(C) All doctors are confident.
(D) Either some doctors are not wealthy, or all doctors are confident.

Accepted Answer

From Statement 1: Doctors ⊆ Educated. From Statement 2: Some educated people are not wealthy (∃ Educated ∉ Wealthy). From Statement 3: Wealthy ⊆ Confident. We know some educated people are not wealthy, but we do NOT know if those non-wealthy educated people include doctors. Doctors could be entirely within the wealthy subset (and thus confident), or some could be in the non-wealthy subset (and thus not necessarily confident). However, we can establish: Either some doctors are not wealthy, OR all doctors are wealthy (and thus confident). This is a valid disjunctive conclusion.

Question 9

Statements:
1. All engineers are problem-solvers.
2. Some problem-solvers are not innovators.

Which of the following conclusions is definitely true?
(A) All engineers are innovators.
(B) Some engineers are not innovators.
(C) No engineers are innovators.
(D) All innovators are engineers.

Accepted Answer

From Statement 1: All engineers are problem-solvers (Engineers ⊆ Problem-solvers). From Statement 2: Some problem-solvers are not innovators (∃ PS that are ¬Innovators). However, this does NOT tell us whether those non-innovators include engineers or not. Engineers could be entirely within the innovator subset, or some could be in the non-innovator subset. We cannot definitively conclude that 'Some engineers are not innovators' because the non-innovators among problem-solvers may not overlap with engineers. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn with certainty.

Question 10

Statements:
1. No corrupt officials are trustworthy.
2. All judges are trustworthy.
3. Some lawyers are corrupt officials.

Which conclusion logically follows?
(A) Some lawyers are judges.
(B) Some lawyers are not trustworthy.
(C) All lawyers are corrupt officials.
(D) No lawyers are judges.

Accepted Answer

From Statement 1: Corrupt officials ∩ Trustworthy = ∅ (No overlap). From Statement 2: All judges are trustworthy (Judges ⊆ Trustworthy). From Statement 3: Some lawyers are corrupt officials (∃ Lawyers ∈ Corrupt officials). Since corrupt officials are NOT trustworthy, and those lawyers who are corrupt officials are therefore not trustworthy, we can conclude: Some lawyers are not trustworthy.

Question 11

Consider the following:
1. No mammals are cold-blooded.
2. All reptiles are cold-blooded.
3. Some animals are mammals.
4. Some animals are not reptiles.

Which conclusion is necessarily true?

A) All animals are either mammals or reptiles.
B) Some mammals are reptiles.
C) Some animals are neither mammals nor reptiles.
D) Either all reptiles are animals OR no reptiles are animals.

Accepted Answer

A four-premise syllogism testing the ability to integrate multiple constraints and avoid false dichotomies.

Question 12

Study the statements:
1. All engineers are problem-solvers.
2. Some problem-solvers are not innovators.
3. All innovators are creative individuals.

Which of the following must be true?

A) All engineers are creative individuals.
B) Some engineers are not innovators.
C) No engineers are innovators.
D) Either some engineers are innovators OR all engineers are non-innovators.

Accepted Answer

A hard syllogism testing whether students can recognize that a middle term with 'some' creates logical ambiguity, requiring an Either/Or conclusion.

Question 13

Analyze these statements:
1. All successful entrepreneurs are risk-takers.
2. No risk-takers are overly cautious.
3. Some business leaders are overly cautious.
4. All business leaders are decision-makers.

Which of the following can be validly concluded?

A) All business leaders are successful entrepreneurs.
B) Some business leaders are not successful entrepreneurs.
C) No business leaders are risk-takers.
D) Either some business leaders are successful entrepreneurs OR no business leaders are successful entrepreneurs.

Accepted Answer

A complex four-premise syllogism requiring students to trace logical chains and recognize when a definite conclusion can be drawn versus when uncertainty remains.

Question 14

Consider the following statements:
1. All philosophers are critical thinkers.
2. Some critical thinkers are not academics.
3. No academics are illogical.

Which of the following conclusions can be definitely drawn?

A) All philosophers are academics.
B) Some philosophers are illogical.
C) Some critical thinkers are illogical.
D) Either all philosophers are academics OR some philosophers are not academics.

Accepted Answer

This is a three-premise syllogism testing the ability to track distributed terms and avoid false conclusions from partial overlap.

RRB NTPC Syllogism

RRB NTPC Syllogism — Past Exam Questions

Syllogism— Rules & Concept

Key Points to Remember

Exam-Specific Tips

60-Second Revision — Syllogism