Statement: 'All mangoes are fruits. Some fruits are sweet.' Conclusion I: Some mangoes are sweet. Conclusion II: All fruits are mangoes. Which conclusion(s) follow(s)?
Correct answer: (D) Neither I nor II follows.
Neither conclusion follows because the premises prove only that all mangoes are fruits and some fruits are sweet, not that mangoes overlap with sweet fruits or that all fruits are mangoes.
Explanation
This is a standard syllogism trap. The SATHEE syllogism rules state that a conclusion must be 100 per cent true, that "All A are B" is not the same as "All B are A", and that an "All + Some" combination gives no definite conclusion. Here, "All mangoes are fruits" only places every mango inside the wider class of fruits. "Some fruits are sweet" identifies a sweet part of the fruit class, but it does not say that this part contains any mangoes. So Conclusion I is not guaranteed. Conclusion II reverses the first statement, which is invalid: all mangoes being fruits does not make all fruits mangoes.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Conclusion I wrongly assumes that the sweet fruits mentioned in the second statement must include mangoes, which the premises never guarantee.
- (B) Conclusion II reverses the universal statement; "all mangoes are fruits" does not imply that every fruit is a mango.
- (C) Both conclusions cannot follow because the first lacks a necessary overlap and the second invalidly reverses the mango-fruit relationship.
Concept
This tests syllogism: whether conclusions follow with certainty from quantified statements such as "all" and "some". It recurs in RAS reasoning because candidates must separate guaranteed conclusions from assumptions that merely sound plausible.