ReasoningAbility.com

Three Statement Standard - Intermediate Level: tricky scenarios handling Three Statement Standard INTERMEDIATE

This expert challenge 📈 worksheet focuses on Three Statement Standard - a key topic in Syllogism. You'll solve 20 intermediate-level problems (Worksheet 5 of 10). The primary focus is on tricky scenarios handling. Master how to solve three statement standard, three statement standard tricks, and three statement standard shortcut methods through systematic practice.

📝 Worksheet 5 of 10 • 20 questions • ⏱️ Estimated time: 20 minutes • 🎯 Intermediate level

What you'll learn in this worksheet:
Your progress through Three Statement Standard
Worksheet 5 of 10 (44% complete)

Question 1

Statements: All vertebrates are warm-blooded. Some warm-blooded are reptiles. No reptiles is a birds. Conclusions: I. Some vertebrates are not birds. II. Some warm-blooded are not birds. III. No birds is a reptiles.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All vertebrates are warm-blooded → vertebrates inside warm-blooded
Statement 2: Some warm-blooded are reptiles → warm-blooded and reptiles overlap
Statement 3: No reptiles is a birds → reptiles and birds separate

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

✓ Conclusion III: "No birds is a reptiles"
Conversion of "No reptiles is a birds" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 2

Statements: All efficient are sustainable. Some sustainable are useful. No useful is a essential. Conclusions: I. Some efficient are not essential. II. Some sustainable are not essential. III. No essential is a useful.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 3

Statements: All principles are strategies. Some strategies are systems. No systems is a processes. Conclusions: I. Some principles are not processes. II. Some strategies are not processes. III. No processes is a systems.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 4

Statements: All nurses are pilots. Some pilots are athletes. No athletes is a pharmacists. Conclusions: I. Some nurses are not pharmacists. II. Some pilots are not pharmacists. III. No pharmacists is a athletes.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 5

Statements: All rare are versatile. Some versatile are beautiful. No beautiful is a essential. Conclusions: I. Some rare are not essential. II. Some versatile are not essential. III. No essential is a beautiful.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

✓ Conclusion II: "Some versatile are not essential"
Some versatile are beautiful (given) + No beautiful is essential (given)
Those versatile 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

Question 6

Statements: All rare are sustainable. Some sustainable are versatile. No versatile is a efficient. Conclusions: I. Some rare are not efficient. II. Some sustainable are not efficient. III. No efficient is a versatile.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All rare are sustainable → rare inside sustainable
Statement 2: Some sustainable are versatile → sustainable and versatile overlap
Statement 3: No versatile is a efficient → versatile and efficient separate

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

✓ Conclusion III: "No efficient is a versatile"
Conversion of "No versatile is a efficient" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 7

Statements: All concepts are methods. Some methods are ideas. No ideas is a frameworks. Conclusions: I. Some concepts are not frameworks. II. Some methods are not frameworks. III. No frameworks is a ideas.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 8

Statements: All utensils are machines. Some machines are tools. No tools is a vehicles. Conclusions: I. Some utensils are not vehicles. II. Some machines are not vehicles. III. No vehicles is a tools.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 9

Statements: All athletes are lawyers. Some lawyers are engineers. No engineers is a accountants. Conclusions: I. Some athletes are not accountants. II. Some lawyers are not accountants. III. No accountants is a engineers.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 10

Statements: All theories are ideas. Some ideas are processes. No processes is a methods. Conclusions: I. Some theories are not methods. II. Some ideas are not methods. III. No methods is a processes.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 11

Statements: All cold-blooded are reptiles. Some reptiles are wild. No wild is a invertebrates. Conclusions: I. Some cold-blooded are not invertebrates. II. Some reptiles are not invertebrates. III. No invertebrates is a wild.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All cold-blooded are reptiles → cold-blooded inside reptiles
Statement 2: Some reptiles are wild → reptiles and wild overlap
Statement 3: No wild is a invertebrates → wild and invertebrates separate

Checking Conclusions:

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

✓ Conclusion II: "Some reptiles are not invertebrates"
Some reptiles are wild (given) + No wild is invertebrates (given)
Those reptiles which are wild cannot be invertebrates - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No invertebrates is a wild"
Conversion of "No wild is a invertebrates" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 12

Statements: All athletes are pilots. Some pilots are musicians. No musicians is a doctors. Conclusions: I. Some athletes are not doctors. II. Some pilots are not doctors. III. No doctors is a musicians.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 13

Statements: All managers are pharmacists. Some pharmacists are scientists. No scientists is a accountants. Conclusions: I. Some managers are not accountants. II. Some pharmacists are not accountants. III. No accountants is a scientists.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 14

Statements: All reptiles are wild. Some wild are fish. No fish is a birds. Conclusions: I. Some reptiles are not birds. II. Some wild are not birds. III. No birds is a fish.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All reptiles are wild → reptiles inside wild
Statement 2: Some wild are fish → wild and fish overlap
Statement 3: No fish is a birds → fish and birds separate

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 15

Statements: All innovative are beautiful. Some beautiful are reliable. No reliable is a valuable. Conclusions: I. Some innovative are not valuable. II. Some beautiful are not valuable. III. No valuable is a reliable.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

✓ Conclusion III: "No valuable is a reliable"
Conversion of "No reliable is a valuable" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 16

Statements: All diurnal are invertebrates. Some invertebrates are wild. No wild is a nocturnal. Conclusions: I. Some diurnal are not nocturnal. II. Some invertebrates are not nocturnal. III. No nocturnal is a wild.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

Statement 1: All diurnal are invertebrates → diurnal inside invertebrates
Statement 2: Some invertebrates are wild → invertebrates and wild overlap
Statement 3: No wild is a nocturnal → wild and nocturnal separate

Checking Conclusions:

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

✓ Conclusion II: "Some invertebrates are not nocturnal"
Some invertebrates are wild (given) + No wild is nocturnal (given)
Those invertebrates which are wild cannot be nocturnal - FOLLOWS

✓ Conclusion III: "No nocturnal is a wild"
Conversion of "No wild is a nocturnal" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 17

Statements: All theories are frameworks. Some frameworks are methods. No methods is a patterns. Conclusions: I. Some theories are not patterns. II. Some frameworks are not patterns. III. No patterns is a methods.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 18

Statements: All essential are efficient. Some efficient are rare. No rare is a beautiful. Conclusions: I. Some essential are not beautiful. II. Some efficient are not beautiful. III. No beautiful is a rare.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 19

Statements: All writers are pilots. Some pilots are engineers. No engineers is a accountants. Conclusions: I. Some writers are not accountants. II. Some pilots are not accountants. III. No accountants is a engineers.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

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

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow

Question 20

Statements: All beautiful are durable. Some durable are useful. No useful is a rare. Conclusions: I. Some beautiful are not rare. II. Some durable are not rare. III. No rare is a useful.
Step-by-Step Analysis:

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

Checking Conclusions:

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

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

✓ Conclusion III: "No rare is a useful"
Conversion of "No useful is a rare" - FOLLOWS

Answer: Conclusions II and III follow
Previous Worksheet Next Worksheet