RAS question
Statement: 'All roses are flowers. All flowers need water.' Conclusion I: All roses need water. Conclusion II: Some things that need water are roses. Which conclusion(s) follow(s)?
Correct answer: (C) Both I and II follow.
Both conclusions follow: all roses need water, and some things that need water are roses.
Explanation
All roses are flowers, and all flowers need water, so every rose falls inside the set of things that need water. SATHEE's syllogism revision gives the same rule as A->B and B->C, therefore A->C, which makes Conclusion I valid. Conclusion II also follows under the standard exam treatment: if roses exist and every rose needs water, then at least some water-needing things are roses. SATHEE's worked pattern for "All A are B; All B are C" similarly accepts both "All A are C" and "Some C are A", so both conclusions are supported.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Conclusion II follows because the accepted syllogism pattern allows the particular conclusion that some water-needing things are roses.
- (B) Conclusion I follows directly from the transitive chain from roses to flowers to things that need water.
- (D) The chain proves Conclusion I and, with the stated existence of roses, also supports Conclusion II.
Concept
Categorical syllogism depends on transitivity and conversion from a universal chain to a particular conclusion. RAS reasoning often rewards precise set logic over casual reading.