Question 1

Statements:
1. All doctors are educated professionals.
2. Some educated professionals are not empathetic.
3. All empathetic people are good communicators.

Conclusion: Some doctors are not good communicators.

Is this conclusion logically valid?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion does not logically follow. While some educated professionals (which include doctors) are not empathetic, and all empathetic people are good communicators, we cannot conclude that some doctors are not good communicators. A doctor who is not empathetic could still be a good communicator through other means. The chain of logic does not force the conclusion.

Question 2

Statements:
1. All successful entrepreneurs are risk-takers.
2. Some risk-takers are not disciplined.
3. No undisciplined person is successful in their personal life.

Conclusion: Some successful entrepreneurs are not successful in their personal life.

Which statement best describes the validity of this conclusion?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion does not validly follow. While some risk-takers are not disciplined, and no undisciplined person is successful in personal life, we cannot conclude that some successful entrepreneurs are not successful in personal life. The successful entrepreneurs (who are risk-takers) could all be in the disciplined subset of risk-takers. The middle term 'risk-takers' is not properly distributed to connect entrepreneurs to personal success.

Question 3

Statements:
1. No corrupt official is honest.
2. All honest people are respected in society.
3. Some government officials are corrupt.

Conclusion: Either some government officials are not respected in society, or all government officials are honest.

Which of the following best describes this conclusion?

Accepted Answer

The conclusion is valid. From the statements: Some government officials are corrupt (Stmt 3). No corrupt official is honest (Stmt 1), so these corrupt officials are not honest. All honest people are respected (Stmt 2), which means not respected people are not honest. Since some officials are not honest (the corrupt ones), they are not necessarily respected. Therefore, either some officials are not respected OR all officials are honest. Since we know some are corrupt (and thus not honest), the first part of the disjunction is true, making the overall conclusion valid.

Question 4

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

Which of the following conclusions is definitely true?

A) All government employees are judges.
B) Some government employees are not judges.
C) Either some judges are government employees or no judges are government employees.
D) No judges are government employees.

Accepted Answer

This question tests the ability to use the contrapositive and chain logical relationships across three premises. The key insight is that if all judges are trustworthy, and no corrupt officials are trustworthy, then no judges can be corrupt officials. Combined with the fact that some government employees are corrupt officials, we can conclude that some government employees are not judges.

Question 5

Statements:
1. All athletes are disciplined.
2. Some disciplined individuals are not successful.
3. No unsuccessful individuals are wealthy.

Which of the following conclusions is definitely true?

A) Some athletes are not wealthy.
B) All athletes are wealthy.
C) Either some athletes are wealthy or some athletes are not wealthy.
D) No athletes are unsuccessful.

Accepted Answer

This question tests the ability to trace logical chains through multiple premises and recognize when a conclusion cannot be definitively derived despite having seemingly relevant information. While we know athletes are disciplined, and some disciplined individuals are not successful, we cannot determine whether the athletes fall into the successful or unsuccessful subset.

Question 6

Statements:
1. No pessimists are optimists.
2. All motivational speakers are optimists.
3. Some employees are pessimists.
4. All pessimists are unhappy.

Which of the following conclusions is definitely true?

A) Some employees are motivational speakers.
B) Some employees are not motivational speakers.
C) Either all employees are unhappy or some employees are happy.
D) All unhappy individuals are pessimists.

Accepted Answer

This question tests the ability to work with four premises and derive a valid conclusion using set exclusion and subset logic. The key is to recognize that some employees are pessimists, pessimists cannot be optimists, and motivational speakers must be optimists. Therefore, the pessimist employees cannot be motivational speakers, leading to the conclusion that some employees are not motivational speakers.

SBI Clerk Critical Reasoning Questions

SBI Clerk Critical Reasoning — Past Exam Questions

Study by Subtopic — Critical Reasoning

Study Next — Logical Reasoning Topics