Master Three Statement Standard - Beginner Level Problems Three Statement Standard BEGINNER

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All reliable are valuable → reliable inside valuable
Statement 2: Some valuable are beautiful → valuable and beautiful overlap
Statement 3: No beautiful is a essential → beautiful and essential separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some reliable are not essential"
Cannot determine relationship between reliable and essential - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some valuable are not essential"
Some valuable are beautiful (given) + No beautiful is essential (given)
Those valuable which are beautiful cannot be essential - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No essential is a beautiful"
Conversion of "No beautiful is a essential" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All invertebrates are domestic → invertebrates inside domestic
Statement 2: Some domestic are warm-blooded → domestic and warm-blooded overlap
Statement 3: No warm-blooded is a herbivores → warm-blooded and herbivores separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some invertebrates are not herbivores"
Cannot determine relationship between invertebrates and herbivores - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some domestic are not herbivores"
Some domestic are warm-blooded (given) + No warm-blooded is herbivores (given)
Those domestic which are warm-blooded cannot be herbivores - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No herbivores is a warm-blooded"
Conversion of "No warm-blooded is a herbivores" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All valuable are durable → valuable inside durable
Statement 2: Some durable are essential → durable and essential overlap
Statement 3: No essential is a accessible → essential and accessible separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some valuable are not accessible"
Cannot determine relationship between valuable and accessible - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some durable are not accessible"
Some durable are essential (given) + No essential is accessible (given)
Those durable which are essential cannot be accessible - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No accessible is a essential"
Conversion of "No essential is a accessible" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All writers are entrepreneurs → writers inside entrepreneurs
Statement 2: Some entrepreneurs are pharmacists → entrepreneurs and pharmacists overlap
Statement 3: No pharmacists is a accountants → pharmacists and accountants separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some writers are not accountants"
Cannot determine relationship between writers and accountants - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some entrepreneurs are not accountants"
Some entrepreneurs are pharmacists (given) + No pharmacists is accountants (given)
Those entrepreneurs which are pharmacists cannot be accountants - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No accountants is a pharmacists"
Conversion of "No pharmacists is a accountants" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All mammals are amphibians → mammals inside amphibians
Statement 2: Some amphibians are herbivores → amphibians and herbivores overlap
Statement 3: No herbivores is a fish → herbivores and fish separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some mammals are not fish"
Cannot determine relationship between mammals and fish - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some amphibians are not fish"
Some amphibians are herbivores (given) + No herbivores is fish (given)
Those amphibians which are herbivores cannot be fish - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No fish is a herbivores"
Conversion of "No herbivores is a fish" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All pilots are managers → pilots inside managers
Statement 2: Some managers are writers → managers and writers overlap
Statement 3: No writers is a athletes → writers and athletes separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some pilots are not athletes"
Cannot determine relationship between pilots and athletes - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some managers are not athletes"
Some managers are writers (given) + No writers is athletes (given)
Those managers which are writers cannot be athletes - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No athletes is a writers"
Conversion of "No writers is a athletes" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All models are systems → models inside systems
Statement 2: Some systems are principles → systems and principles overlap
Statement 3: No principles is a processes → principles and processes separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some models are not processes"
Cannot determine relationship between models and processes - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some systems are not processes"
Some systems are principles (given) + No principles is processes (given)
Those systems which are principles cannot be processes - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No processes is a principles"
Conversion of "No principles is a processes" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All theories are patterns → theories inside patterns
Statement 2: Some patterns are frameworks → patterns and frameworks overlap
Statement 3: No frameworks is a processes → frameworks and processes separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some theories are not processes"
Cannot determine relationship between theories and processes - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some patterns are not processes"
Some patterns are frameworks (given) + No frameworks is processes (given)
Those patterns which are frameworks cannot be processes - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No processes is a frameworks"
Conversion of "No frameworks is a processes" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All scientists are engineers → scientists inside engineers
Statement 2: Some engineers are teachers → engineers and teachers overlap
Statement 3: No teachers is a lawyers → teachers and lawyers separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some scientists are not lawyers"
Cannot determine relationship between scientists and lawyers - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some engineers are not lawyers"
Some engineers are teachers (given) + No teachers is lawyers (given)
Those engineers which are teachers cannot be lawyers - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No lawyers is a teachers"
Conversion of "No teachers is a lawyers" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All utensils are vehicles → utensils inside vehicles
Statement 2: Some vehicles are instruments → vehicles and instruments overlap
Statement 3: No instruments is a machines → instruments and machines separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some utensils are not machines"
Cannot determine relationship between utensils and machines - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some vehicles are not machines"
Some vehicles are instruments (given) + No instruments is machines (given)
Those vehicles which are instruments cannot be machines - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No machines is a instruments"
Conversion of "No instruments is a machines" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All pharmacists are teachers → pharmacists inside teachers
Statement 2: Some teachers are writers → teachers and writers overlap
Statement 3: No writers is a accountants → writers and accountants separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some pharmacists are not accountants"
Cannot determine relationship between pharmacists and accountants - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some teachers are not accountants"
Some teachers are writers (given) + No writers is accountants (given)
Those teachers which are writers cannot be accountants - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No accountants is a writers"
Conversion of "No writers is a accountants" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All instruments are equipment → instruments inside equipment
Statement 2: Some equipment are devices → equipment and devices overlap
Statement 3: No devices is a appliances → devices and appliances separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some instruments are not appliances"
Cannot determine relationship between instruments and appliances - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some equipment are not appliances"
Some equipment are devices (given) + No devices is appliances (given)
Those equipment which are devices cannot be appliances - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No appliances is a devices"
Conversion of "No devices is a appliances" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All durable are useful → durable inside useful
Statement 2: Some useful are essential → useful and essential overlap
Statement 3: No essential is a sustainable → essential and sustainable separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some durable are not sustainable"
Cannot determine relationship between durable and sustainable - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some useful are not sustainable"
Some useful are essential (given) + No essential is sustainable (given)
Those useful which are essential cannot be sustainable - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No sustainable is a essential"
Conversion of "No essential is a sustainable" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All theories are models → theories inside models
Statement 2: Some models are concepts → models and concepts overlap
Statement 3: No concepts is a ideas → concepts and ideas separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some theories are not ideas"
Cannot determine relationship between theories and ideas - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some models are not ideas"
Some models are concepts (given) + No concepts is ideas (given)
Those models which are concepts cannot be ideas - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No ideas is a concepts"
Conversion of "No concepts is a ideas" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All architects are writers → architects inside writers
Statement 2: Some writers are musicians → writers and musicians overlap
Statement 3: No musicians is a managers → musicians and managers separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some architects are not managers"
Cannot determine relationship between architects and managers - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some writers are not managers"
Some writers are musicians (given) + No musicians is managers (given)
Those writers which are musicians cannot be managers - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No managers is a musicians"
Conversion of "No musicians is a managers" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All models are frameworks → models inside frameworks
Statement 2: Some frameworks are methods → frameworks and methods overlap
Statement 3: No methods is a concepts → methods and concepts separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some models are not concepts"
Cannot determine relationship between models and concepts - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some frameworks are not concepts"
Some frameworks are methods (given) + No methods is concepts (given)
Those frameworks which are methods cannot be concepts - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No concepts is a methods"
Conversion of "No methods is a concepts" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All instruments are appliances → instruments inside appliances
Statement 2: Some appliances are machines → appliances and machines overlap
Statement 3: No machines is a vehicles → machines and vehicles separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some instruments are not vehicles"
Cannot determine relationship between instruments and vehicles - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some appliances are not vehicles"
Some appliances are machines (given) + No machines is vehicles (given)
Those appliances which are machines cannot be vehicles - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No vehicles is a machines"
Conversion of "No machines is a vehicles" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All ideas are theories → ideas inside theories
Statement 2: Some theories are strategies → theories and strategies overlap
Statement 3: No strategies is a frameworks → strategies and frameworks separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some ideas are not frameworks"
Cannot determine relationship between ideas and frameworks - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some theories are not frameworks"
Some theories are strategies (given) + No strategies is frameworks (given)
Those theories which are strategies cannot be frameworks - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No frameworks is a strategies"
Conversion of "No strategies is a frameworks" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All equipment are utensils → equipment inside utensils
Statement 2: Some utensils are electronics → utensils and electronics overlap
Statement 3: No electronics is a machines → electronics and machines separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some equipment are not machines"
Cannot determine relationship between equipment and machines - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some utensils are not machines"
Some utensils are electronics (given) + No electronics is machines (given)
Those utensils which are electronics cannot be machines - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No machines is a electronics"
Conversion of "No electronics is a machines" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All reliable are valuable → reliable inside valuable
Statement 2: Some valuable are essential → valuable and essential overlap
Statement 3: No essential is a beautiful → essential and beautiful separate

Checking Conclusions:

✗ Conclusion I: "Some reliable are not beautiful"
Cannot determine relationship between reliable and beautiful - NOT PROVEN

✓ Conclusion II: "Some valuable are not beautiful"
Some valuable are essential (given) + No essential is beautiful (given)
Those valuable which are essential cannot be beautiful - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No beautiful is a essential"
Conversion of "No essential is a beautiful" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow