ReasoningAbility.com

Categorical Syllogisms Beginner-Intermediate Worksheet: Focus on common variations practice Categorical Syllogisms BEGINNER INTERMEDIATE

Level up your Categorical Syllogisms skills! You're at Worksheet 4 of 10 (33% through this series). This step-up challenge worksheet features 20 beginner-intermediate-level problems with a focus on common variations practice. Topics covered: categorical syllogisms for competitive exams, how to solve categorical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms tricks.

📝 Worksheet 4 of 10 • 20 questions • ⏱️ Estimated time: 20 minutes • 🎯 Beginner Intermediate level

What you'll learn in this worksheet:
Your progress through Categorical Syllogisms
Worksheet 4 of 10 (33% complete)

Question 1

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 2

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise 2: All snakes are reptiles. Therefore, no snakes are warm-blooded. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: No A are B, all C are A → No C are B.

Question 3

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise 2: All snakes are reptiles. Therefore, no snakes are warm-blooded. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: No A are B, all C are A → No C are B.

Question 4

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 5

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 6

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All mammals are animals. Premise 2: All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are animals. Is this syllogism logically valid?
This is valid: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C. All dogs (A) are mammals (B), all mammals (B) are animals (C), so all dogs (A) are animals (C).

Question 7

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise 2: All snakes are reptiles. Therefore, no snakes are warm-blooded. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: No A are B, all C are A → No C are B.

Question 8

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 9

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 10

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All mammals are animals. Premise 2: All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are animals. Is this syllogism logically valid?
This is valid: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C. All dogs (A) are mammals (B), all mammals (B) are animals (C), so all dogs (A) are animals (C).

Question 11

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: Some students are athletes. Premise 2: All athletes are healthy. Therefore, some students are healthy. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: Some A are B, all B are C → Some A are C.

Question 12

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise 2: All snakes are reptiles. Therefore, no snakes are warm-blooded. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: No A are B, all C are A → No C are B.

Question 13

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: No reptiles are warm-blooded. Premise 2: All snakes are reptiles. Therefore, no snakes are warm-blooded. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: No A are B, all C are A → No C are B.

Question 14

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: Some students are athletes. Premise 2: All athletes are healthy. Therefore, some students are healthy. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: Some A are B, all B are C → Some A are C.

Question 15

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All mammals are animals. Premise 2: All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are animals. Is this syllogism logically valid?
This is valid: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C. All dogs (A) are mammals (B), all mammals (B) are animals (C), so all dogs (A) are animals (C).

Question 16

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.

Question 17

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: Some politicians are honest. Premise 2: No honest people lie. Therefore, some politicians do not lie. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: Some A are B, no B are C → Some A are not C.

Question 18

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: Some politicians are honest. Premise 2: No honest people lie. Therefore, some politicians do not lie. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: Some A are B, no B are C → Some A are not C.

Question 19

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: Some students are athletes. Premise 2: All athletes are healthy. Therefore, some students are healthy. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Valid: Some A are B, all B are C → Some A are C.

Question 20

Consider this syllogism: Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2: Some mammals are dogs. Therefore, some cats are dogs. Is this syllogism logically valid?
Invalid fallacy: All A are B, some B are C → does NOT imply some A are C. The some could be entirely outside A.
Previous Worksheet Next Worksheet