Introduction

There are two main types of Syllogism question

2-Statements

3-Statements

Question Statement:
I. All cats are dogs
II. All dogs are birdsConclusion:
I. Some cats are birds
II. Some birds are cats.

Question Statement
A. All cats are dogs
B. some pigs are cats
C. no dogs are birdsConclusion
I. some cats are dogs
II. no birds are cats
III. some pigs are birds
IV. some pigs are not birds

2 Statement Syllogism questions are usually found in IBPS

(Bank) and SSC exams.
UPSC CSAT 2012 exam had quite a few questions on 3
Statement Syllogism.
In CAT exams, they ask 2 Statement Syllogism but they pack 34 such 2-statement syllogism questions inside one question to
make it very time-consuming process.
In this article, you will learn how to solve the 2 Statement
syllogism questions.
3 Statement syllogism syllogism is explained in separate
article (CLICK ME). (Theyre mere an extension of the concepts
explained in this article, so first master the 2-statement
technique here.)

2-statement Syllogism questions

There are three methods to solve 2-statement Syllogism questions.

1. Venn Diagram

In the exam, Have to think of all

possible Venn-Diagram situation
and draw them to check every
statement.= time consuming in the
exam hall.

1 AEIO (analytical
Method)

Have to mugup some rules, and

spend some hours @home to master
the AEIO conversion in your head.
But once done, it is easy as a walk in
the park.

Usually taught in CAT coaching

classes and study material.
1 Distribution of
terms (Tick
method)

Technique is very fast but It excludes

the concept of Conversion and
Complementary cases, hence
sometimes makes it difficult to solve
non-CAT questions.

The technique explained in this article, is a modified version of AEIO

method combined with the Tick Method. Lets call itU.P.-U.N. method.

Basics
Subject vs Predicate
Consider this question statement
1. All cats are dogs
2. Some dogs are birds
3. No bird is a pig
4. Some pigs are not birds.
In all such statements, first-term is called subject and second is called
predicate.
It doesnt matter what word is given: Table, Chair, Raja, Kalmadi,
Kanimozhi or Madhu Koda first term is subject and second term is

predicate.
Lets relook at those question statements
Subject

Predicate

1. All cats are dogs

Cats

Dogs

2. Some dogs are birds

Dogs

Birds

3. No bird is a pig

Bird

Pig

4. Some pigs are not birds.

Pigs

Birds

I hope the Subject vs. Predicate is clear now. Lets move to second
thing

Classification of statement
In syllogism, each statement usually has following format
xyz subject is/are (not) predicate.
For example,
Xyz

Subject

Is/are (+/-not)

Predicate

All

Cats

Are

Dogs

Some

Pigs

Are not

birds

Based on xyz and not, we classify the statements as following

Statement

Type

Codename

1. All cats are dogs

Universal Positive

UP

2. Some dogs are birds

Particular Positive

PP

3. No bird is a pig

Universal Negative

UN

4. Some pigs are not birds.

Particular Negative

PN

Please remember following words. Whenever they come, you classify

the statement accordingly.
All, every, any, none, not a single, only etc.

Universal (positive
or negative)

Some, many, a few, quite a few, not many, very

little, most of, almost, generally, often, freqently,
etc.

Particular
(positive or
negative)

Standard format: conversion

The standard 2-statement syllogism question format is following:
1. (xyz) A is/are (+/- not) B
2. (xyz) B is/are (+/- not) C
So basically it is
1. A>B
2. B>C
(read as A to B then B to C)
What does this tell us?
Question statements must have ONLY three terms. (A, B and C).
In the exam, if they give you two question statements with four terms
then your time is saved! Just tick the answer no conclusion can be
drawn.
For example
Question
statements

Answer

1. All cats are

Dogs
2. Some birds
are pigs

No conclusion can be drawn. Because it has four

terms (cats, dogs, birds, pigs)
A>B
C>D

Anyways back to the topic,

The standard format for question statements is:
1. A>B
2. B>C

1. First term>Middle Term

2. Middle Term>Third term

But if the given question statements are not given in this format, then
we must convert them into above format. Otherwise we cannot
proceed with answer. For example
Given question statements are
1. A>B
2. C>B

This must be converted into

1. A>B
2. B>C

Given question statements are

1. B>A
2. B>C

This must be converted into

1. A>B
2. B>C

Ok, so how to convert the statements?

Universal Positive (UP)
Given Statement

Valid conversions Type

Given Statement: All Cats

are Dogs

Some Cats are

dogs

Particular Positive
(PP)

Some dogs are

cats

Particular Positive
(PP)

It means UP can be converted into PP.

Please note: if the statement is Only Dogs are cats, then better
convert it into All cats are dogs. (Only A is B > All B are A)
Universal Negative (UN)
Given Statement

Valid conversions

Type

Given Statement: No Cats

are Dogs

Some dogs are not Particular

cats
Negative (PN)
No dogs are cats

Universal
Negative (UN)

It means UN can be converted into PN or UN.

Particular Positive (PP)
Given Statement

Valid conversions

Type

Some Cats are Dogs Some dogs are cats Particular Positive (PP)
It means PP can be converted into PP only.
Particular Negative
Example: Some Cats are not Dogs. In Particular negative statements
(PN), no conversion can be made.
So PN=cant convert.
To sum up the conversion rules
Type

Valid Conversion

Universal Positive (UP)

Only PP

Universal Negative (UN)

PN or UN

Particular Positive (PP)

Only PP

Particular Negative (PN)

Not possible.

Please note:
In some lower level exams, sometimes they directly ask about
conversion. For example
Q. What can be concluded from the given statement: Some

Politicians are honest men.

Answer choices
1. Some Honest men are not Politicians.
2. All Honest men are not politician
3. Some Honest men are politicians.
4. None of Above.
(Please donot read further, without solving above question.)
Solution
well, the given statement Some Politicians are honest men. is a
particular positive statement (PP).
Hence according to our table, it can be converted into PP only.
Therefore
Given answer choice

Thought process

1. Some Honest men are not

Politicians.

Particular negative (PN), hence

eliminate.

1 No Honest men are

politicians.

Universal Negative, hence

eliminate

1 Some Honest men are

politicians.

PP hence this is correct answer.

1 None of Above.

not applicable because C is the

correct answer.

In case you are wondering,

Q. Some politicians are honest men.
In above case, cant the answer be A: Some honest men are not
politicians?

Well, if you go by Venn Diagram method, itll lead to two cases hence
it is doubtful.
Case #1
Data
1. Sardar Patel
Subject (Politicians)

2. Lal Bahadur Shastri

3. Raja
4. Kalmadi

Predicate (Honest Men)

1. Sardar Patel
2. Lal Bahadur Shastri

In above situation, can you say Some honest men are not
politicians?
Well you cant say that. Because both Honest men (Sardar and
Shastri) are in politician set.
Case #2
Data
1. Sardar Patel
Subject (Politicians)

2. Lal Bahadur Shastri

3. Raja
4. Kalmadi

Predicate (Honest Men)

1. Sardar Patel

2. Lal Bahadur Shastri

3. Bhagat Singh
4. ChandraSekhar Azad
In above situation, can you say Some honest men are not
politicians?
Yes you can. Because two Honest men (Bhagat Singh and
Azad) are not in politician set.
The point is, whenever two cases are possible, you cannot
safely conclude one statement.
Hence, if the statement is
Some A are B> it doesnt mean Some B are not A.
The only valid conclusion in above case is :Some B are A.
Therefore Particular Positive (PP) statement can be converted into
Particular Positive (PP) statement only.
Similarly
Type of Statement

Universal Positive (UP)

All cats(A) are dogs (B)
Universal Negative (UN)
No Cats(A) are dogs (B)
Particular Positive (PP)

Valid Conversion

Path

Only PP

A to
B

Some Cats (A) are dogs. (B)

Some dogs (B) are cats. (A)
PN :Some Dogs (B) are not Cats
(A).
UN: No Dogs (B) are cats. (A)
Only PP: Some dogs (B) are
cats(A)

B to
A
B to
A
B to
A

Some cats (A) are dogs

(B)
Particular Negative (PN)

Not possible.

Anyways back to the topic, what are we discussing?

1. Topic of discussion is: How to solve 2 statement syllogism
question
2. Subject vs predicate
3. Type of statements (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Standard format and conversion.
The standard question format is
A>B
B>C
If the given question doesnt have statements in ^above standard
format, then we must convert them into standard format. Only then we
can proceed further.
So far, We constructed our shortcut table on how to convert the
statements. Now
lets try some examples
Question statements Conversion?
1. All Cats are
Already in standard format (A to B and then B
dogs(B)
to C)
2. Some dogs(B) are
hence no need to convert.
not pigs.
No need to convert any statement.
1. Some dogs(B) are
Just exchange the position of first and
not pigs.
second statement.
2. All Cats are
1. All Cats are dogs(B)
dogs(B)
2. Some dogs(B) are not pigs.

1. All Cats are dogs

(B)
2. All pigs are
dogs(B)

Have to convert, because not in standard

format.1.All cats(A) are dogs(B)
2.Some dogs(B) are pigs(C). (Rule UP-> only
PP)

Now coming to the heart of the matter: how to solve the (stupid) 2
statement syllogism question?

No conclusion Combos
Here are the non-conclusion combos when two question statements
are in following format.
First statement (A to B)

Second statement (B to C)

Answer

Particular Positive (PP)

No
conclusion

Particular Negative (PN)

No
conclusion

Universal Negative (UN)

No
conclusion

Particular Negative (PN)

No
conclusion

Particular Positive (PP)

No
conclusion

Particular Negative (PN)

No
conclusion

Any other (UP, UN, PP,

PN)

No
conclusion

Universal Positive (UP)

Universal Negative
(UN)

Particular Positive (PP)

Particular Negative
(PN)

^does it look difficult?

Not really. Lets condense this table into mug-up rules.
1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive
and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI
in retail until the 11th hour.
2. United Nations hates negativity. (both Universal and particular)
3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody.
4. Two-negatives=no conclusion. (although implicit in 2+3)
5. Two particulars=no conclusion. (although implicit in 1+3)
Please note: in ^above situations definite conclusion is impossible.
However, sometimes two answer choices are still possible either a or
b.
That concept is called Complimentary pairs. Well learn about it at
the bottom of this article.
For the moment, lets not complicate the matters with complimentary
pairs.
Ok back to topic, when you face a Two-statement syllogism
question? youll follow these steps:
1. first, make sure it contains only three terms (ABC) (else no
conclusion.)
2. Make sure question statements are in standard format (A to B
then B to C). If not in standard format, then re-arrange.
3. Classify the question statements. (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Check if the question statements have no conclusion combos
(^Above rules)
if above things donot yield an answer, then weve to think about what
will be the conclusion(s)?

Conclusive-Combos
If youve followed above steps, then question statements in the format
A to B and then B to C.

First statement (A
to B)

Universal Positive
(UP)

Universal
Negative (UN)

Particular Positive
(PP)

Second statement
(B to C)

Conclusion

Universal Positive
(UP)

Universal Positive (UP)

(A to C)

Universal Negative
(UN)

Universal Negative (UN)

(A to C)

Universal positive
(UP)
Particular Positive
(PP)

Particular Negative (PN).

(C to A)

Universal Positive
(UP)

Particular Positive (PP)

(A to C)

Universal Negative
(UN)

Particular Negative (PN)

(A to C)

As you can see from above table,

The answer statement is usually in the format of A to C. with exception
when first question statement is Universal Negative (UN).
Lets condense this table into mug-up rules as well.
Conclusive-Combos

In your head, visualize

1. UP+UP=UP

If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar Pradesh, then

its size doesnt increase.

1 UP+UN=UN

If Uttar Pradesh meets United Nations then

its size increases and it becomes United
Nations.

1 UN+
(UP/PP)=PN

United Nations Secretary Ban Ki Moon is in

very positive mood. But he meets another

positive person, and his attitude is

totally reversed- he becomes particularly
negative! (reversed =C to A)
1 PP+
(UP/UN)=PP/P
N

When Mr.PP observes the universe via

NASA telescope, his mood becomes positive
or negative depending on the mood of
universe.

Try a question from SSC-CGL (Tier-I, 2010) exam,

DemoQ: Crazy men and Women

Question Statements
1. All men are women.
2. All women are crazy.
Conclusion
1. All Men are crazy
2. All the crazy are men
3. Some of the crazy are men
4. Some of the crazy are women
Answer
a. None of the conclusion follows
b. All conclusions follow
c. Only 1, 3 and 4 follow
d. Only 2 and 3 follow
(I suggest you pause here. First try to solve it on your own, without
directly reading the solution. If youve difficulty, re-read rules given
above)
Solution

Our standard operating procedure (SOP)

Question Statements
1. All men are women.
2. All women are crazy.
First step: make sure four terms are not given = check. Only three
terms (men, women, crazy)
Second step, make sure theyre in standard format (A to B and then B
to C): Check yes theyre.
Hence conversion is not required.
1. All men(A) are women. (B) (UP)

1 All women(B) are crazy.(C) (UP)

Third step, classify the statements.
1. All men are women.

Universal Positive (UP)

1 All women are crazy.

Universal Positive (UP)

Fourth step: check the combo for question statements.

Well, since it is UP+UP= its size doesnt increase. Hence
conclusion should be UP. (A to C) meaning All men(A) are crazy.
(C)
Check the answer statements.
1. All Men are
crazy

Correct.

1 All the crazy

are men

Recall that conversion table.Universal

Positive (UP) can be converted only into
Particular Positive (PP).
Since All men are crazy => Some Crazy are
men.
But we cannot say All crazy are men. So this
option is false.
If you apply common sense at this stage: well,
1st statement correct, and 2nd statement is false,
hence answer is (C): only 1, 3 and 4 follow!

1 Some of the
crazy are
men

Correct because of conversion table

1 Some of the
crazy are
women

Given question statement : All women are

crazy. (Universal positive). If we apply
conversion table (UP=> PP) then Some Crazy
are women. Hence this statement is also
correct.

Final answer (C): only 1, 3 and 4 follow

If youre still staggering, I suggest you go through those rules again,
note them down in a diary in your own words and language, revise a
few times. Then try next question

DemoQ: Intelligent Poets and singers

Question Statements (SSC-CPO exam)
1. All poets are intelligent
2. All singers are intelligent.
Conclusion
1. all singers are poets
2. some intelligent persons are not singers
Answer choices

a. only conclusion one follows

b. only conclusion two follows
c. either conclusion one or conclusion two follows
d. neither follows
solution
first step: does the question statements have only three terms?
Check: Yes. Singers, poets, intelligent. Good, proceed with next step.
Second step: Are the question statements given in standard format (A
to B then B to C)?
Check. Nope
1. All poets (A) are intelligent (B)
2. All singers (C) are intelligent. (B)
Then we have to convert it into standard format. And since both
statements are universal positive, we dont need to worry about which
statement to convert first? (that priority order, more about it,
explained at the bottom of this article.)
Second statement is universal positive (UP), according to our table,
we can only convert it into particular positive (PP) therefore
All singers (C) are intelligent. (B)==> Some intelligent persons(B) are
singers.(C)
Now the new question statements, in the standard format (A to B then
B to C) are
1. All poets are intelligent (B)
2. Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.
Third step, classify the question statements
question statement

type

1. All poets(A) are intelligent (B)

Universal positive
(UP)

2. Some intelligent persons(B) are singers.

(C)

Particular positive
(PP)

Fourth step, apply the combo rules.

Since UPs politicians hate particular statements (both positive and
negative), hence no conclusion can be drawn. That means we cannot
connect A to C or C to A.
Now check the Answer statements
i. all singers(C)
are poets (A)

ii. some
intelligent
persons are not
singers

False. UP+PP=no conclusion, as explained

above.

Check the second original question

statement : All singers are intelligent.
(Universal positive UP).
According to our conversion table, UP can
be converted into particular positive (PP)
only. But this answer statement (II) is a
particular negative statement. Hence this is
also false.

Final answer: (D) neither follows.

CAT-level
Same UP-UN Concept but they pack 3-4 or more syllogism questions
into one question to test your speed, not just your understanding. for
example:

DemoQ: Sweet Testing Apples (CAT)

given question has five statements followed by options containing
three statements put together in a specific order. Choose the option
which indicates a valid argument, where the third statement is a
conclusion drawn from the preceding two statements.
Question statements (CAT 1999)
a. Apples are not sweet
b. Some apples are sweet
c. All sweets are tasty

d. Some apples are not tasty

e. No apple is tasty
answer choices
1. cea
2. bdc
3. cbd
4. eac
solution and approach
weve to check the given options one by one.
Option (i). CEA. Meaning weve to take C as our statement (I), E as
our Statement (II) and then observe, if statement (A) can be
concluded from C and E.
C

All sweets are tasty

Universal positive

No apple is tasty.

Universal negative

Apples are not sweet

Universal negative

In the actual CAT exam, we cannot afford to waste time in actually

converting all statements and checking them.
Here is the fast approach
1. three terms?= yes
2. in standard format? No. but we can convert second (UN) into
another UN and then combo rule is UP+UN=UN.
Hence this answer choice (CEA) is correct.
Final answer (i) CEA

DemoQ: Working mother nurses (CAT)

question statement

answer choices

a. No mother is a nurse.
b. Some Nurses like to work

1. ABE

c. No woman is prude

2. CED

d. Some prude are also nurses

3. FEB

e. Some nurses are women

4. BEF

f. All women like to work

Check the answer choices one by one.
i. ABE
A (Statement I)

No mother is a nurse. (UN)

B (Statement II)

Some Nurses like to work

E (Conclusion)

Some Nurses are women.

This is invalid. Because Statement I and II have three terms (Mother,

Nurse and work) while given conclusion statement adds fourth new
term women
Move to next choice.
ii. CED
Statement

Type

C (Statement I)

No woman is prude

Universal negative

E (Statement II)

Some nurses are

women

Particular positive

D (conclusion)

Some prude are also

Particular positive

nurses
Question statements have three terms? Yes (women, prude, nurses)
Are they in standard format (A to B then B to C?) nope.
No woman(B) is prude

Universal negative

Some nurses are

women(B)

Particular positive

change position of first and second statement.

1. Some nurses(A) are women(B)
2. No woman(B) is prude(C)
question statement

type

1. Some nurses(A) are women(B)

Particular positive (PP)

2. No woman(B) is prude(C)

Universal negative (UN)

Apply the combo rules

PP+UN=??
When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his
mood becomes particularly negative or positive depending on
the mood of universe. Hence PP+UN=PN.(A to C)
So legitimate conclusion is Some Prune arenot nurses.
But Check the given conclusion statement: Some prude are
also nurses. It is Particular positive (PP).
But According to conversion table, PN cannot be converted. So
we cannot say that since Some prune are not nurses, that
means some prunes are nurses!

 Therefore given answer choice(ii) CED is false because D

cannot be concluded from C+E.
Move to the next answer choice.
Actual thought process: three terms =yes. Standard form=no.
rearrange. But PP+UN=PN, cant be converted to PP. Hence false.
iii.FEB
Statement

Type

F (Statement I)

All women like to work

Universal positive
UP

E (Statement II)

Some nurses are

women

Particular positive
PP

B (conclusion)

Some nurses like to

work

Particular positive
PP

three terms =yes. Standard form=no. but no need to convert, just

exchange position of statement I and II.
Some nurses(A) are
women(B)

Particular positive
PP

All women(B) like to

work (C)

Universal positive
UP

Apply combo rule, again same situation

When Mr.PP observes the universe via NASA telescope, his mood
becomes particularly positive or negative depending on the mood of
universe. Hence PP+UP=PP.(A to C).
Some nurses(A) like to work(C). Done! This is same as the given
conclusion (B)
Therefore, final answer is (iii) FEB.

DemoQ: 4 questions in 1!

This one is from CAT-1999.

Each of the given question statement as three segments. Choose the
alternative where third segment of the statement can be logically be
used using the both preceding two but not just from one of them
Question statements
a. all dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures. Water buffaloes are not
dinosaurs. Water buffaloes are not prehistoric creatures
b. all politicians are frank. No frank people are crocodiles. No
crocodiles are politicians
c. no diamond is quartz. No opal is quartz. Diamonds are opals.
d. All monkeys like bananas. Some Joes like bananas. Some Joes
are monkeys.
Answer choice
i.

Only C

ii.

Only B

iii.

Only A and D

iv.

Only B and C
Approach

C. Diamonds,
Quartz, Opals.

Three terms yes. Standard format =No.Both

question statements are Universal negative. We
can convert either of them, into UN or PN. But in
any case, both question statements will remain
negative. And Two negatives=no conclusion. So
C is not possible. Hence answer choice (i) and
(iv) eliminated.

B. Frank
politicians and
crocodiles

Already in three terms standard

format.UP+UN=size enlarged and becomes UN.
So conclusion should be No crocodile is
politician so this statement is correct. Hence
answer choice (ii).

Final answer: (ii) only B.

The End?
No. Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost: just three more concepts before
concluding the Two-Statement Syllogism

Special Conversions
Recall that when question statements are not in standard format (A to
B then B to C), in that case weve to convert them according to
conversion table. Here are some special cases.
Given Question statement

None but Politicians

are honest.

Conversion (all applicable to all

given question statements)

Typ
e

1. All honest(people) are

politicians

UP

No one else but

Politicians are honest.

1 No non-politician is
honest.

Only politicians are

honest.

2 No honest (people) are

non-politicians.

Politicians alone are

honest

1 Some politicians are

honest

UN

PP

Second concept:

Complimentary pairs
Earlier we saw there are five no-conclusion combos
1. UPs politicians hate giving particular statements (both positive
and negative). E.g. they donot reveal their clear position on FDI
in retail until the 11th hour.
2. United Nations hates negativity of any type. (both Universal and
particular)

3. Pritish Nandy hates everybody.

4. Two-negatives=no conclusion.
5. Two particulars=no conclusion.
For example
Question
statement

1. Some Politicians are male.2. Some males

are honest.

Conclusion

1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No Politicians

are honest.

Answer choice
a. Only 1 follows
b. Only 2 follows
c. Either 1 or 2 follows
d. Neither follows
Apply the standard operating procedure:
Three terms? Check: yes
Are they in standard format? A to B then B to C? check. Yes
Then classify the statements
1. Some Politicians(A) are males(B)

Particular positive.

2. Some males(B) are honest(C)

Particular positive.

From the given rules, Two particulars = No conclusion!

But please observe one of the answer choice (C)= Either 1 or 2
follows.
Consider these cases
Case#2

Politicians

1 Sardar
Patel
1 Lal
Bahadur
Shastri
1 Raja
1 Kalmadi
1 Sheila

Males

honest

1. Sardar Patel

1. Sardar Patel

2. Lal Bahadur
Shastri

2. Lal Bahadur
Shastri

3. Raja

3. Bhagat Singh

4. Kalmadi

4. ChandraSekhar
Azad

5. Bhagat Singh
6. ChandraSekhar
Azad

5. Sarojini Naidu
6. Mother Teresa

In this case#1: some politicians (Sardar and Shastri) are honest.

So conclusion (1) may be possible.
Case#2
Politicians

Males

honest

1. Raja

1. Bhagat Singh

1. Raja

2. Kalmadi

2. Kalmadi

3. Bhagat Singh

2. ChandraSekhar
Azad

3. Sheila

4. ChandraSekhar
Azad

3. Sarojini Naidu
4. Mother Teresa

In this case, No politician is honest.

So conclusion (2) may be possible.
Therefore answer becomes Either 1 or 2 follows
Such syllogism-situations are called complementary.
Youve to check following things, before thinking about
complementary cases.

1. Two statements with three terms? Yes

2. Question statements are given in standard format (A to B Then
B to C). if not, then rearrange or convert them.
3. Classify the statements (UP, UN, PP, PN)
4. Apply the rules. Get the answer.
5. If Step #4 gives No conclusion AND one of the answer choice
is in the format of Either I or II follows, only then check for
complemantary case.
Checklist: complementary case
1. Two answer choices have same subject and predicate.
Applicable

Not applicable

1. Some Politicians are

honest.2. No Politicians are
honestBecause both have
common subject (politician)
and common predicate
(honest)

1. Some Politicians are honest.2. No

Honest are Politicians.In first
statement, subject=Politician but in
second statement, subject= Honest.
Hence complemantary case not
possible.

2). The answer choice combo must be either of these three

Answer choice combo

Example

Uttar Pradesh (UP) + Pritish Nandy

(PN)

1. All Politicians are honest.

2. Some Politicians arenot
honest

PP + Pritish Nandy (PN)

1. Some Politicians are

honest.
2. Some Politicians arenot
honest

1. Some Politicians are

honest.
2. No Politicians are honest

PP + United Nations (UN)

When these two conditions are met, then answer would be Either (I)
or (II) follows.

Priority order
You know that when Question statements are not in standard format
(A to B Then B to C), we must convert them. But here is a thing to
keep in mind. Consider these statements
Question statements:
1. All Dogs are Cats.
2. Some Dogs are Pigs.
Common term or middle term is Dogs. So thats our B.
1. All Dogs(B) are Cats.
2. Some Dogs(B) are Pigs.
We can convert it via two routes
Route #1

Route #2

Well re-order the statements. (that is

interchange thee position of both
Just convert the first
statements)
statement.
1. Some dogs(B) are pigs
1. Some Cats are
2. All Dogs(B) are Cats
dogs. (Rule: UP to PP) Now well convert the first statement.
2. Some Dogs are pigs. 1. Some pigs are Dogs (B) (Rule: PP to
PP)
2. All dogs (B) are cats.
Both routes are valid.
Now the question is, which route should be preferred?
The priority order is:
1) Particular positive (PP) >> 2) Universal Negative (UN) >> 3)
Universal Positive (UP)
Note: weve not included Particular Negative (PN) in this order
because PN cannot be converted. So according to this priority order

PP>UN>UP, route #2 is the more suitable approach. (although such

complications dont usually arise in most of the questions).

Tricky Situations: Priority order

Consider this scenario
Question statements

Conclusion

1. All women(B) are birds

1. Some birds are tree

2. Some women(B) are tree

2. All trees are bird.

As you can see, the question statements are not in standard format (A
to B then B to C).
So, which question statement to convert?
First the wrong approach.

W
R
O
N
G

Since question statements are not in standard format (A to B

then B to C), hence well convert first statement. (UP to
PP)After conversion
1. Some birds(A) are women (B)
2. Some women(B) are tree
Both question statements are particular, hence final
answer=No conclusion. (please note: this approach is wrong,
because weve not followed the priority order).

Now the correct approach

C
O
R

The priority order for Statement conversion is

PP>UN>UP.Meaning, if there are two question statements, and
weve to convert one of them to make it a standard format=>
then well convert Particular positive statement first.

So in the given case

1. All women(B) are birds
2. Some women(B) are tree
Convert second statement. (PP to PP)
1. All women(B) are birds.
R
E

2. Some trees are women(B).

Now exchange positions of question statements

1. Some trees are women(B). (PP)

2. All women(B) are birds. (UP)

Now theyre in standard format, apply combo rule: PP+UP=PP
(Nasa telescope rule!)
Hence conclusion is
Some trees are birds. (PP)
We can also say that Some birds are trees. (PP to PP
conversion). Therefore answer is (1)

Moral of the story: Conversion priority: PP>UN>UP. Especially when

youre getting PP+PP= no conclusion after conversion.

Tricky Situations: 1-Statement Conclusion

Question statements
1. All the flowers are leaves.(B)
(UP)
2. Some leaves(B) are birds (PP)

Conclusion
1. Some birds are flowers
2. Some leaves are
flowers

Question statement contains only three terms=yes.

Are they in standard format? (A To B then B to C?) =Yes.
Apply combo rules: UP+PP=No conclusion because Uttar Pradeshs
politicians hate particular statements.
But heres the catch. Observe the conclusion statements carefully
Conclusion
statement

Thought process

1. Some birds
Not possible because combo rule.
are flowers

1 Some
leaves are
flowers

first question statement says All flowers are

leaves. If you apply the conversion rule UP->PP,
thenAll flowers are leaves=> Some leaves are
flowers. Hence this conclusion is correct,
although it did not employ both question
statements.

Moral of the story: Read terms (subject-predicate) of conclusion

statements.

Summary
What to do when 2-statement syllogism question is given?
1. They must have only three terms (A, B and C)
2. Are the question statements in standard format (A to B then B to
C)? if no, then refer to following conversion table. (important:
priority order for conversion is PP>UN>UP.)
Type

Valid Conversion

Universal Positive (UP)

Only PP

Universal Negative (UN)

PN or UN

Particular Positive (PP)

Only PP

Particular Negative (PN)

Cant do.

3. Classify the Question statement (UP, UN, PP, PN)

4. Apply the combo rules on Question statements.
No conclusion
1. UPs politicians hate
giving particular
statements (both positive
and negative). E.g. they
donot reveal their clear
position on FDI in retail
until the 11th hour.
(UP+PP/PN=NO)
2. United Nations hates
negativity. (both Universal
and particular)
(UN+UN/PN=NO)
3. Pritish Nandy hates
everybody. (first
statement is PN=NO,
Irrespective of second
statement.)
4. Two-negatives=no
conclusion.
5. Two particulars=no
conclusion.

Yes conclusion
1. If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar
Pradesh, then its size
doesnt increase.
(UP+UP=UP)
2. If Uttar Pradesh meets
United Nations then size
increases and it becomes
United Nations.
(UP+UN=UN)
3. United Nations Secretary
Ban Ki Moon is in very
positive mood. But he meets
another positive person, and
his attitude is totally
reversed- he becomes
particularly negative!
(reversed =C to A).
(UN+UP/PP=PN)
4. When Mr.PP observes the
universe via NASA
telescope, his mood
becomes particularly positive
or negative depending on
the mood of universe.

(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN)
5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and either or given in answer,
then check for Complimentary case.
This concludes the discussion on 2 statement Syllogism question.
In later article, well see the 3-statement syllogism. It is basically
extention of the same UP-UN method that we learned here. However,
to quickly solve 3-statements, first you must become a master of 2statement. So, practice as many sums as you can, from any of the
following books.

Recap of 2-Statement syllogism

Before we understand the 3-statement syllogism, lets recap the 2statement trick just for refreshing your memory.
What to do when 2-statement syllogism question is given?
1. They must have only three terms (A, B and C)
2. Are the question statements in standard format (A to B then B to
C)? if no, then refer to following conversion table. (important:
priority order for conversion is PP>UN>UP.)
Type

Valid Conversion

Universal Positive (UP)

Only PP

Universal Negative (UN)

PN or UN

Particular Positive (PP)

Only PP

Particular Negative (PN)

Cant do.

3. Classify the Question statement (UP, UN, PP, PN)

4. Apply the combo rules on Question statements.

No conclusion scenario

1. UPs politicians hate

giving particular
statements (both positive
and negative). E.g. they
donot reveal their clear
position on FDI in retail
until the 11th hour.
(UP+PP/PN=NO)
2. United Nations hates
negativity. (both Universal
and particular)
(UN+UN/PN=NO)
3. Pritish Nandy hates
everybody. (first
statement is PN=NO,
Irrespective of second
statement.)
4. Two-negatives=no
conclusion.
5. Two particulars=no
conclusion.

possible conclusion scenario

1. If Uttar Pradesh meets Uttar

Pradesh, then its size
doesnt increase.
(UP+UP=UP)
2. If Uttar Pradesh meets
United Nations then size
increases and it becomes
United Nations.
(UP+UN=UN)
3. United Nations Secretary
Ban Ki Moon is in very
positive mood. But he meets
another positive person, and
his attitude is totally
reversed- he becomes
particularly negative!
(reversed =C to A).
(UN+UP/PP=PN)
4. When Mr.PP observes the
universe via NASA
telescope, his mood
becomes particularly positive
or negative depending on
the mood of universe.
(PP+UP/UN=PP/PN)

5. (rarely required): if no-conclusion and either or given in answer,

then check for Complimentary case.
Now well see how to solve three-statement syllogism.

Parent Statements
The crux of 2-statement syllogism was
I.

When weve Question statements in standard format (A to B

then B to C).

II.

We apply some combo rules and may get a conclusion in the

form of A to C

(or we may get the conclusion in form of C to A, in case the question

statements were in the format of UN+(UP/PP). Recall the Ban-kiMoons mood reversal).
In case of three statement syllogism, we accept the conclusion
statement (A to C) as valid, then try to find out its parents (those
question statements A to B then B to C).
Then, we try to get a valid conclusion out of those two-question
statements and see if it matches with the given conclusion state in
answer.
No need to get confused, lets try with a simple scenario.

question statement

1. All cats are dogs

2. some pigs are cats.
3. All dogs are tigers

Answer choices
a. Only 1 and 2
b. Only 1, 2 and 3
c. All follow

conclusion statement

1. some tigers are cats

2. some pigs are tigers
3. all cats are tigers
4. some cats are not tigers

d. None Follow
Start with first conclusion statement
i) Some tigers are cats (PP)
Q. if this is a valid conclusion, whore its parents?
Ans. Thouse question statements with words tigers, cats, and a
common term.
You can see, first and third statement fits the bill.
Q.statement

Type

1. All cats(A) are dogs(B)

UP

1 All dogs(B) are tigers(C)

UP

Three terms=Ofcourse yes.

Are they in standard format (A to B then B to C)? Yes.
Then what are you waiting for? Just apply the combo rules. UP
meets UP then its size doesnt increase (UP+UP=UP) A to C.
Hence conclusion will be All cats are tigers. (meaning given
conclusion statement #3 is valid).
If we convert this valid conclusion All cats are tigers (UP), then
UP>PP= Some tigers are cats.
It means the given conclusion statement#1 is also valid.
So far: 1 and 3 are correct.
Now test the second conclusion statement.

Chain formula
ii) some pigs are tigers

if this is a valid conclusion, whore its parents?

Ans. . Those question statements with words pigs, tigers, and a
common term(B).
But I dont see any such question statements.
Now well have to apply chain formula. Meaning, (A to B1, then B1 to
B2, then B2 to C).
Consider this arrangement
Question statements
(CHAIN)

Chain

1. some pigs(A) are

cats.(B1)

1 All cats(B1) are

dogs(B2)

Pig to Cat, cat to dog and finally dog to

tiger. Lets see if we connect pig to tiger.

1 All dogs(B2) are

tigers(C)
Well take two statements at time and try to get an intermediate
conclusion.
Statement

Type

1. some pigs(A) are cats.(B1)

Particular positive (PP)

1 All cats(B1) are dogs(B2)

Universal positive (UP)

Three terms = yes

Standard format= yes. (there A to B1 and then B1 to B2, which is just

like A to B then B to C)
Apply combo-rule
PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to B2)
Hence intermediate conclusion is Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2)
Now take this intermediate conclusion with the next statement in our
chain.
Question-statements

Type

Some pigs(A) are dogs(B2) Particular positive (PP) (derived)

All dogs(B2) are tigers(C)

Universal positive (UP) (given in question).

Again, same standard operating procedure of 2-statement syllogism.

Three terms = yes
Standard format= yes. (there A to B2 and then B2 to C, which is just
like A to B then B to C)
Apply combo-rule
Again, PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change!) (A to C)
Therefore conclusion is Some pigs(A) are tigers (C).
Voila! Second conclusion statement is also correct.
So far 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
Lets check the last statement (IV).
iv) some cats are not tigers
while we were checking the first conclusion statement, we had found
that All cats are tigers (UP). Therefore, given conclusion statement is
not possible.
Final answer: only 1, 2 and 3 are correct. (option b)

DemoQ: Married Student Dancers (CSAT-2012)

Question statements
1. None but students are the members of the club.

2. Some members of the club are married.

3. All married persons are invited for dance.
Which one of the conclusions can be drawn from the above
statements?
a. All students are invited for dance
b. All married students are invited for dance
c. All members of the club are married person
d. None of the above conclusions can be drawn
Solution and approach
first, rephrase the given statements so that processing becomes
easier.
Recall the special conversion rule from previous article on 2
statement.
None but Politicians(A) are honest(B)=> All honest(B) are
politicians(A) (Universal positive)
Im replacing the word members of the club with clubmembers.
Thus simplified version of the given question is following
Question statements

Answer statements

1. All clubmembers are

students.2. Some clubmembers
are married.
3. All married are invited for
Dance.

a) All students are invited for

danceb) All married students are
invited for dance
c) All club-members are married.
d) None of the above conclusions
can be drawn

Ok now what?
Weve to pick up the answer statement one by one and test them.
a) All students are invited for dance
there are two ways to solve this statement, first the
longcut method
Whore the parents of this conclusion statement?
No direct parents. Weve to apply chainrule.
Question statements

Chain rule

1. All clubmembers(B1) are

students(A)

1 Some clubmembers(B1)
are married.(B2)

Well try to link studentsclubmembers-married-dance

invitation.

1 All married(B2) are invited

for Dance.(C)
Lets start. First two statements

1. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A)

UP

1 Some clubmembers(B1) are married.(B2)

PP

Standard format? Nope.

Conversion needed: yes. But priority order=PP>UN>UP. Means well
convert the second statement (particular positive)

1. All clubmembers(B1) are students(A)

UP

1 Some married (B2) are

clubmembers(B1).

PP converted to
PP.

Theyre still not in standard format. So Exchange positions

1. Some married (B2) are

clubmembers(B1).

PP converted to
PP.

1 All clubmembers(B1) are students(A)

UP

Ok now theyre in standard format. Apply the combo rule. PP+UP=PP

(NASA Mood change)
Some married are students. This is our intermediate conclusion. Now
pair it up with third question statement from the chain rule
Some married(B2) are students(A)

PP

All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C)

UP

Standard format? Nope.

Then convert!
Some students(A) are married(B2)

PP

All married(B2) are invited for Dance.(C)

UP

Ok now in standard format (A to B then B to C)

Apply combo rule PP+UP=PP (NASA mood change again!)

Conclusion = Some students are invited for dance. (PP)

But the given answer statement says All students are invited for
dance(UP)=impossible.
Hence first answer choice is eliminated.
Shortcut
You see the conclusion statement says all students are invited
for Dance. (univ.positive statement).
When do we get universal positive statement as conclusion.?
Only when UP+UP=UP.
If we apply the chain-rule, well encounter one particular positive
(PP). And thatll ruin the mood (because whenever particular
positive statement comes, the conclusion is either
1. PP+UP=Particular positive (NASA mood change) OR
2. UP+PP=No conclusion. (UP politicians hate particular statements).
Hence we can never get a Universal positive (UP) type of
conclusion, in either case! Means this answer choice is invalid
by default! No need to manully apply chain rule here. Anyways,
Move to the next answer choice
b) All married students are invited for dance
superficially this statement contains three terms.
1. Married
2. Student
3. Dance
Wait a minute! Our syllogism conclusions contain only two terms (e.g.
All dogs are cats.)
So, how can we apply syllogism here?
Well, if you observe carefully, the syllogism rules are still applicable in
this conclusion statement containing three terms.

From the longcut method in previous option, weve found

that Some students are invited for dance. (PP)
Question: which students are invited? Well, we eliminated the
middle-term (B2) Married. Means all married students are
invited for dance. (this represents the intersecting area between
two Venn Diagram circles).
Therefore, we can say All married students are invited for
dance. Hence Answer is (B).
c) All club-members are married.(UP)
The second question statement says, Some clubmembers are
married. (PP).
A particular positive statement can be converted into only PP. Hence
we cannot say for sure that all club members are married. Hence this
answer choice is incorrect.

DemoQ: Rich n Sick Air travellers (CSAT-2012)

Question Statements
1. None but the rich ran afford air-travel.
2. Some of those who travel by air become sick
3. Some of those who become sick require treatment
Conclusion statements
a. All the rich persons travel by air.
b. Those who travel by air become sick
c. All the rich persons become sick.
d. All those who travel by air are rich
Solution
first we will simplify the given statements.

 Recall the special conversion rule from earlier article on 2statement syllogism.
None but Politicians(A) are honest.(B)=> All honest(B) are
politicians(A) (Universal positive)
Similarly, None but the rich ran afford air-travel=> All airtravellers are rich. (UP).
That means, Correct answer is (D). Case is over.
But just for concept clarity, lets test remaining answer choices
as well.
Simplified Answer statements
Simplified question statements
1. All air-travellers are rich.

a. All rich are air-travellers.

b. (all) air travellers are sick

2. Some air travellers are

sick.

c. All rich are sick.

3. Some sick are treatment.

d. All air-travellers are are

rich.

Now lets solve

The given question statement is All airtravellers(A) are rich.(B)(UP). Apply the
a. All rich
conversion here, UP=>PP. Hence Some rich(B)
are airtravellers. are air-travellers(A).Therefore, first answer choice
is incorrect.
a (all) air
travellers
are sick

Question statement #2 says Some air travellers

are sick. (PP). cant convert to UP.Hence this
option is also incorrect.
c) All rich are sick.

Q.If this is the conclusion statement, then who are its parents?
Ans. Those question statements which contain the terms rich, sick,
along with a common middle term.
From the given question statements, following two fit the bill
1. All air-travellers(B) are rich

UP

2. Some air travellers(B) are sick

PP

Approach #1 (shortcut)
Please observe: All rich are sick.= Universal positive statement.
When do we get UP conclusion? Only when combo rule UP+UP=UP
is applied.
Now in above case, one question statement is PP. so itll kill the
mood. UP conclusion is not possible. (no need to convert any
statement.)
Approach #2 (longcut)
1. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(A)

UP

2. Some air travellers(B) are sick.(C)

PP

As you can see, there is one middle term (air travellers). But the
question statements are not in standard format (A to B then B to C).
It means, we must convert anyone statement. But priority for
conversion is PP>UN>UP.
So we will convert second statement.
Some air-travellers are sick (PP)==convert==> Some sick are airtravellers(B)
1. All air-travellers(B) are rich.

UP

2. Some sick are air-travellers(B)

PP

But they are still not in standard format (A to B then B to C). well no
problem, just exchange position of question statements
1.Some sick(A) are air-travellers(B)

PP

2. All air-travellers(B) are rich.(C)

UP

Apply the Combo-rule. PP+UP=PP (NASA Mood change).

Hence Some sick(A) are rich.(C). (PP)
If we convert it then Some rich are sick. (PP convert to PP).
But answer choice says All rich are sick.= this is not possible.
Therefore, third answer choice is also incorrect.

DemoQ: Drug addict Artists (CSAT-2012)

Question statements
1. All artists are whimsical.
2. Some artists are drug addicts.
3. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts.
From the above three statements it may be concluded that:
a. Artists are frustrated
b. Some drug addicts are whimsical
c. All frustrated people are drug addicts.
d. Whimsical people are generally frustrated
Statement 3 says Frustrated people are prone to become drug
addicts. For our purpose this is a Particular positive (PP) statement.

Lets simplify it to Some frustrated people are drug addicts Now start
with answer (A)
a) (all) Artists are frustrated (UP)
if this is the answer, then what could be the question statements?
The question statements could be those statements where the words
Artist and frustrated come along with a common middle-term (B)
Consider these question statements:
2. Some artists are drug addicts.(B)

PP

3. Some Frustrated people are drug addicts.(B)

PP

Although this in not in standard format, but even when we convert

one of them (PP->PP), well be left with PP+PP=no conclusion.
Hence move to next option.
b) Some drug addicts are whimsical
if this is the answer, then what could be the question
statements?
The question statements could be those statements where the
words drug addict and whimsical come along with a common
middle-term (B)
Consider these question statements:
1. All artists (B) are whimsical.

UP

2. Some artists (B) are drug addicts.

PP

Three terms = yes.

Standard format (A to B then B to C)=No.

 So maybe to convert anyone know the statement. according to

the priority order PP>UN>UP, we must convert second
statement.
1. All artists (B) are whimsical.

UP

2. Some drug addicts are artists (B).

PP->PP converted.

Now interchange position of question statement 1 and 2.

Some drug addicts(A) are artists (B).

PP->PP converted.

All artists (B) are whimsical.(C)

UP

Okay now what? Apply the combo rules

PP+UP=PP. (NASA mood change).
Thus final answer is some drug addicts are
whimsical. (option B)
For the archive of all [Aptitude] articles, visit Mrunal.org/aptitude.