GCAT - General Cognitive Ability Syllogistic Reasoning Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Read the following statements: 1. All engineers are proficient with computers. 2. Some people who are proficient with computers are also artists. Based only on these statements, which of the following conclusions is logically valid?
- All artists are proficient with computers.
- Some engineers are artists.
- All people proficient with computers are engineers.
- A conclusion cannot be logically drawn. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A conclusion cannot be logically drawn.
The premises establish that engineers are a subset of 'people proficient with computers'. They also state that the group 'artists' has some overlap with 'people proficient with computers'. However, we do not know if the artist overlap includes any engineers. The artists who are proficient with computers could be entirely separate from the engineers. Therefore, no certain conclusion can be drawn about the relationship between engineers and artists.
Question 2: Consider the following premises: 1. No projects using the 'Agile' methodology are approved without a security review. 2. The 'Odyssey' project was approved. What can be logically concluded from this information?
- The 'Odyssey' project did not use the 'Agile' methodology.
- The 'Odyssey' project had a security review. (Correct answer)
- All approved projects have a security review.
- The 'Odyssey' project used the 'Waterfall' methodology.
Correct answer: The 'Odyssey' project had a security review.
The first premise can be rephrased as a conditional: If a project uses the 'Agile' methodology, then it is NOT approved without a security review. The second premise tells us the 'Odyssey' project was approved. This means it did not meet the condition of 'not approved without a security review'. Therefore, it must have had a security review. We cannot conclude anything about which methodology it used, only that it fulfilled the approval requirement.
Question 3: Review the following statements: 1. All valid reports are signed by a manager. 2. Some reports on the shared drive are not signed by a manager. Which of the following statements is a logical deduction from the information above?
- No reports on the shared drive are valid.
- All reports signed by a manager are on the shared drive.
- Some reports on the shared drive are not valid reports. (Correct answer)
- Some valid reports are not on the shared drive.
Correct answer: Some reports on the shared drive are not valid reports.
The first premise states a necessary condition for a report to be valid: it must be signed by a manager. The second premise states that some reports on the shared drive lack this necessary signature. Therefore, it logically follows that those specific reports on the shared drive that are not signed cannot be valid.
Question 4: You are given the following information about company teams: 1. All members of the Marketing team are proficient in social media. 2. No members of the Finance team are proficient in social media. Based only on these premises, which conclusion is unavoidable?
- Some members of the Marketing team are also in the Finance team.
- No member of the Marketing team is also a member of the Finance team. (Correct answer)
- Anyone proficient in social media is on the Marketing team.
- Some members of the Finance team are proficient in social media.
Correct answer: No member of the Marketing team is also a member of the Finance team.
The premises establish a clear dividing line based on the skill 'proficient in social media'. Since all Marketing members have this skill and no Finance members have it, the two groups are mutually exclusive. There can be no overlap between them.
Question 5: In a hospital's protocol, the following rules apply: 1. If a patient is in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), they are monitored continuously. 2. Patient X is not being monitored continuously. What must be true about Patient X?
- Patient X has been discharged.
- Patient X is in the general ward.
- Patient X is not in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). (Correct answer)
- The monitoring equipment for Patient X is broken.
Correct answer: Patient X is not in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
This is an example of a logical form called Modus Tollens. The first premise is 'If P, then Q' (If in ICU, then monitored). The second premise is 'not Q' (not monitored). The valid conclusion is therefore 'not P' (not in ICU). The other options are possible explanations but are not logical certainties based *only* on the given premises.
Question 6: Read these statements about a group of professionals: 1. All neurologists are doctors. 2. Some neurologists are also researchers. Which conclusion can be logically drawn from these statements?
- Some doctors are researchers. (Correct answer)
- All doctors are neurologists.
- All researchers are doctors.
- No doctors are researchers.
Correct answer: Some doctors are researchers.
Since some neurologists are researchers (Premise 2), and all of these neurologists are also doctors (Premise 1), it must be true that some of those doctors are researchers. The group 'researchers' overlaps with the group 'neurologists', and the entire 'neurologists' group is inside the 'doctors' group. Therefore, the 'researchers' group must also overlap with the 'doctors' group.
GCAT - General Cognitive Ability Syllogistic Reasoning Questions and Answers
Read the following statements:
1.
All engineers are proficient with computers.
2.
Some people who are proficient with computers are also artists.
Based only on these statements, which of the following conclusions is logically valid?