Deduction — demo | VerbalReasoningPractice

Deductionconditional chaineasy

Every chilled churn is moved to the loading bay. Every churn in the loading bay is weighed by the dairyman.

Conclusion: Every chilled churn is weighed by the dairyman. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

Choose an answer to reveal the explanation

Verified answer: A — Follows

The evidence

Every chilled churn is moved to the loading bay. Every churn in the loading bay is weighed by the dairyman.

The highlighted text decides the answer.

What to notice

Two one-way rules chain through 'the loading bay'.

The rule

Hypothetical syllogism: (chilled -> bay), (bay -> weighed) gives (chilled -> weighed).

Why the others are wrong

B — Does Not Follow: The two rules chain cleanly; rejecting the link drops premise 2.

Report this question

Deductionconditional chaineasy

Every sterile tray goes on the green rack. Every tray on the green rack is taken to theatre.

Which conclusion follows from the premises?

Choose an answer to reveal the explanation

Verified answer: B — Every sterile tray is taken to theatre.

The evidence

Every sterile tray goes on the green rack. Every tray on the green rack is taken to theatre.

The highlighted text decides the answer.

What to notice

Chain the two rules forward through 'the green rack'.

The rule

Hypothetical syllogism over the two one-way rules.

Why the others are wrong

A — Every sterile tray is checked before theatre.: Adds a checking step the premises never mention.
C — Every tray in the unit is taken to theatre.: Widens the claim to every tray in the unit, which the premises never state.
D — Only sterile trays are taken to theatre.: Adds 'only', which the premises do not state; other trays may reach theatre too.
E — Every tray is on the green rack.: Adds an unconditional claim the premises never make.

Report this question

Deductionconditional chainhard

If a parcel misses the depot cut-off, it is routed to the late bay. If a parcel is routed to the late bay, it travels on the relief van, which reaches the hub after midnight. If a parcel reaches the hub after midnight, its delivery is rescheduled to the next working day.

Which conclusion follows from the premises?

Choose an answer to reveal the explanation

Verified answer: A — If a parcel misses the depot cut-off, its delivery is rescheduled to the next working day.

The evidence

If a parcel misses the depot cut-off, it is routed to the late bay. If a parcel is routed to the late bay, it travels on the relief van, which reaches the hub after midnight. If a parcel reaches the hub after midnight, its delivery is rescheduled to the next working day.

The highlighted text decides the answer.

What to notice

A three-link chain ringed by an affirm-consequent and a deny-antecedent trap.

The rule

Iterated hypothetical syllogism from cut-off through late bay and relief van to rescheduling.

Why the others are wrong

B — If a parcel makes the depot cut-off, its delivery is not rescheduled.: Denies the antecedent; making the cut-off does not guarantee no reschedule.
C — If a parcel travels on the relief van, it missed the depot cut-off.: Reverses premise 2; the relief van does not prove a missed cut-off.
D — Every parcel reaches the hub after midnight.: Asserts every parcel arrives after midnight, which no premise states.
E — If a parcel's delivery is rescheduled, it missed the depot cut-off.: Affirms the consequent; a reschedule can have other causes.

Report this question

Deductionconditional chainmedium

If a tram enters the depot, its brakes are tested. If a tram's brakes are tested, the logbook is signed.

Which conclusion follows from the premises?

Choose an answer to reveal the explanation

Verified answer: D — If a tram enters the depot, the logbook is signed.

The evidence

If a tram enters the depot, its brakes are tested. If a tram's brakes are tested, the logbook is signed.

The highlighted text decides the answer.

What to notice

Two one-way rules chain forward through 'brakes are tested'; the foils run the rules backwards.

The rule

Hypothetical syllogism: (enter -> brakes tested), (brakes tested -> logbook signed) gives (enter -> logbook signed).

Why the others are wrong

A — If a tram's brakes are tested, the tram entered the depot.: Reverses premise 1; a brake test need not mean the tram entered the depot.
B — If the logbook is signed, the tram entered the depot.: Affirms the consequent; a signed logbook has other causes.
C — Every tram enters the depot.: Asserts every tram enters the depot, which no premise states.
E — If a tram does not enter the depot, the logbook is not signed.: Denies the antecedent; not entering does not block a signature.

Report this question