Logical Reasoning MCQ Set 22

Question 1: In case Sue sits between Pete and Harry, then Harry sits between Sue and Mike. Harry won't be there unless Sue sits next to Mike. Hence, Sue will not sit between Pete and Harry.
Apart from the above mentioned statements, what additional premises are assumed by the author of this argument?
Mike sits next to Sue if no one sits between them.
If Sue sits between Pete and Harry, then Sue sits between Harry and Pete.
If Harry isn't there, then he doesn't sit next to Mike.

1. I and II only
2. I and III only
3. II and III only
4. I, II and III
5. None of the above

Question 1: In case Sue sits between Pete and Harry, then Harry sits between Sue and Mike. Harry won't be there unless Sue sits next to Mike. Hence, Sue will not sit between Pete and Harry.
Apart from the above mentioned statements, what additional premises are assumed by the author of this argument?
Mike sits next to Sue if no one sits between them.
If Sue sits between Pete and Harry, then Sue sits between Harry and Pete.
If Harry isn't there, then he doesn't sit next to Mike.

1. I and II only
2. I and III only
3. II and III only
4. I, II and III
5. None of the above

We can never make our beliefs regarding the world certain. Even scientific theory of a most rigorous and well-confirmed nature is likely to change over a decade or even tomorrow. If we refuse to even try to understand, then it is like resigning from the human race. Undoubtedly life of an unexamined kind is worth living in other respects--as it is no mean thing to be a vegetable or an animal. It is also true that a man wishes to see this speculative domain beyond his next dinner.

Question 1: From the above passage it is clear that the author believes that

1. men would not do well to speculate
2. progress in the scientific field is impossible
3. one should live life with the dictum 'what will be will be'
4. men should ignore their animal needs
5. men are different from animals as far as their reasoning abilities are concerned.

Everything that a person does, which is dictated by reason of ignorance is not voluntary. Involuntary actions are those which produce pain and repentance. Incase a man has done something in his ignorance and he does not feel vexed due to his action, he has not acted voluntarily as he was not aware of what he was doing, nor yet involuntarily since he is not pained.

Question 1: After reading this passage we can arrive at the conclusion that:

1. A person is not a voluntary agent, if he acts by reason of ignorance and repents. .
2. If an action is done by reason of ignorance and is not voluntary , then it was repented.
3. A man is an involuntary agent, if he acts by reason of ignorance.
4. Some actions are either involuntary or not voluntary.
5. If a man is not a voluntary agent, then he acted by reason of ignorance and repents.

Everything that God knows necessarily is, because even what we ourselves know necessarily is; and, of course, our knowledge is not as certain as God's knowledge is. But no future contingent thing necessarily is..

Question 1: Among the following statements, which naturally follows from the above:

1. There are no future contingent things.
2. It is not true that God has knowledge of only necessary things.
3. God has knowledge of no contingent future things.
4. It is not possible for us to know God.
5. God has knowledge of everything. .

It can be proved by an example that our words are devoid of meaning as they cannot be distinguished from their opposites. People think that they are aware of the difference between the meanings of 'bald' and 'having hair' Let us suppose that an average twenty-one year old has X strands of hair on his or her head. We say that such a person is not bald but has hair. But surely one hair less would make no difference, and a person with X - 1 hairs on his or her head would be said to have hair. Suppose we go on like this, decreasing one hair at a time, the result would be the same. Then what difference would there be between someone who has one hair and someone who has none? We call them both bald. Thus, we cannot make a distinction between the terms 'bald' and 'having hair.

Question 1: Among the following statements, which statement best counters the argument above?

1. The word 'bald' can be translated into other languages.
2. A word can have more than one meaning.
3. A word such as 'monkey' can be applied to several animals that differ in some respects.
4. Words can lack precision without being meaningless.
5. People cannot think clearly without using words.