Statement Conclusion

🟢 Lite — Quick Review (1h–1d)

Rapid summary for last-minute revision before your exam.

Statement Conclusion questions test your logical reasoning ability. You’re given a statement (or statements) followed by conclusions. You must determine which conclusions logically follow from the given statement(s). This is a critical section in SSC CGL Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Key Principle: A conclusion should be based ONLY on the information given in the statement. Do not assume or bring in external knowledge.

Types of Conclusions:

1. Definite Conclusions: Must be true based on the statement
2. Possible Conclusions: Could be true but aren’t necessarily true
3. Invalid Conclusions: Contradict the statement or can’t be derived

⚡ SSC CGL Exam Tips:

• Never assume additional information
• “Could be true” means it may or may not be true
• If statement says “All cats are animals,” then “Some animals are cats” DEFINITELY follows
• If statement says “Some cats are black,” then “All cats are black” DOES NOT follow
• A conclusion with “only” or “none” is harder to establish — usually doesn’t follow

---

🟡 Standard — Regular Study (2d–2mo)

Standard content for students with a few days to months.

Understanding Statement-Conclusion Logic

Basic Syllogism Rules:

When we say “All A are B”:

• Some A are B (✓ follows)
• Some B are A (✓ follows)
• No A is B (✗ doesn’t follow)
• All B are A (✗ doesn’t follow)

When we say “No A is B”:

• No B is A (✓ follows)
• Some A are not B (✓ follows)
• All A are B (✗ doesn’t follow)

When we say “Some A are B”:

• Some B are A (✓ follows)
• All A are B (✗ doesn’t follow)
• No A is B (✗ doesn’t follow)
• Some A are not B (✗ doesn’t follow - could be either way)

Worked Example 1: Statement: All teachers are educated. Some educated people are doctors. Conclusions: I. Some doctors are teachers II. Some educated people are not teachers

Analysis:

• “All teachers are educated” → teachers is a subset of educated
• “Some educated are doctors” → doctors and educated overlap
• Conclusion I: “Some doctors are teachers” — Not necessarily true. Doctors could be different from teachers. The overlap could be empty teachers in the educated doctors. Wait: “All teachers are educated” and “Some educated are doctors” means educated ∩ doctors is non-empty. But teachers (subset of educated) ∩ doctors could be empty. So “Some doctors are teachers” doesn’t definitely follow. ✗
• Conclusion II: “Some educated are not teachers” — Since “All teachers are educated,” the educated people who are NOT teachers could be zero? No, since “some educated are doctors” and doctors ≠ teachers in all cases, there could be educated people who are not teachers. Wait, if ALL teachers = ALL educated, then “some educated are not teachers” would be false. But we don’t know if “All teachers are educated” means teachers = educated or teachers ⊂ educated. Actually “All A are B” means A ⊆ B. So teachers ⊆ educated. “some educated are doctors” means educated ∩ doctors ≠ ∅. Does this imply some educated are not teachers? If educated = only teachers, then all educated are teachers, contradicting “some educated are doctors” (unless doctors and teachers are the same people… still, some educated would be teachers but that doesn’t mean ALL educated are teachers only). Actually if all educated are teachers, then some educated being doctors means some teachers are doctors, which is fine. But then there might be no educated non-teachers if educated ⊆ teachers. Hmm, “All teachers are educated” means teachers ⊆ educated. “some educated are doctors” means educated ∩ doctors ≠ ∅. If educated = teachers only (teachers = educated), then some educated are doctors = some teachers are doctors. Possible but not certain. Could educated = teachers + other people? Yes, possible. So “some educated are not teachers” is possible but not definite. ✗

Wait, I need to reconsider. “All teachers are educated” doesn’t say ONLY teachers are educated. It allows for educated people who are not teachers. And “Some educated are doctors” adds that some of these educated are also doctors. So both conclusions could be true but neither is DEFINITE.

Actually: “Some doctors are teachers” — Could doctors and teachers be completely disjoint? Yes, if the educated doctors are not teachers. Not definite. “Some educated are not teachers” — Could all educated be teachers? If teachers ⊂ educated, then there are educated who are not teachers. But if educated ⊆ teachers (all educated are teachers), then no educated are non-teachers. We don’t know. So not definite.

Both don’t definitely follow. ✗

Worked Example 2: Statement: No singer is a dancer. Some dancers are actors. Conclusions: I. No singer is an actor II. Some actors are dancers

Analysis:

• “No singer is dancer” → singer ∩ dancer = ∅
• “Some dancers are actors” → dancer ∩ actors ≠ ∅
• Conclusion I: “No singer is actor” — Can’t say. Singers and actors could overlap. ✗
• Conclusion II: “Some actors are dancers” — Yes, this is restating the second premise. ✓

Venn Diagram Approach:

For complex statements, draw Venn diagrams:

1. Draw circles for each category
2. Shade/mark areas based on statements
3. Check which conclusions are definitely true

Example with Venn: Statement: All roses are flowers. Some flowers are red. Conclusions: I. All roses are red II. Some roses are red

Venn:

• Roses ⊂ Flowers
• Some Flowers ∩ Red ≠ ∅ I: All roses are red? No, just because roses ⊂ flowers and some flowers are red doesn’t mean ALL roses are the red flowers. ✗ II: Some roses are red? Could be, but not necessarily. The red flowers might not include any roses. ✗

Both don’t follow.

---

🔴 Extended — Deep Study (3mo+)

Comprehensive coverage with complex syllogisms and previous year SSC CGL patterns.

Advanced Syllogism Patterns:

Pattern 1: Three-Term Syllogism Statement: All A are B. All B are C. Conclusions:

• All A are C (✓)
• Some A are C (✓)
• Some B are A (✓)

Pattern 2: Contradictory Statements Statement: All politicians are liars. No liars are honest. Conclusions:

• No politician is honest (✓)
• Some politicians are not honest (✓)

Pattern 3: Possibility Cases When a conclusion uses “could be” or “might be,” it may be valid even if not definite.

Statement: Some books are pens. All pens are expensive. Conclusions: I. All books are expensive (✗ doesn’t follow) II. Some books could be expensive (✓ could follow)

Pattern 4: Either-Or Cases When neither conclusion can be definitively proven but one must be true:

Statement: Some A are B. Some A are not B. Conclusions: I. All A are B II. Some A are not B

Here, II is given directly, and I cannot be proven. But in exam questions with either-or, usually the answer is that neither I nor II follows.

Previous Year SSC CGL Patterns:

SSC CGL 2022: Statement: All doctors are professionals. No professionals are unemployed. Conclusions: I. No doctor is unemployed II. Some doctors are unemployed

Analysis:

• All doctors ⊂ professionals
• No professionals ∩ unemployed Therefore: No doctor ∩ unemployed (since doctors ⊂ professionals and professionals don’t intersect with unemployed) I follows ✓ II doesn’t follow ✗

SSC CGL 2022: Statement: Some teachers are researchers. Some researchers are scientists. Conclusions: I. Some teachers are scientists II. All teachers are researchers

Analysis:

• Some teachers ⊂ researchers (overlap)
• Some researchers ⊂ scientists (overlap)
• Teachers and scientists could be completely disjoint sets I: Not definite ✗ II: Not given, and doesn’t follow ✗

SSC CGL 2023: Statement: Every actor is a star. Some stars are directors. Conclusions: I. Every director is a star II. Some actors are directors

Analysis:

• Actors ⊂ stars
• Some stars ∩ directors ≠ ∅ I: Doesn’t follow — “Some stars are directors” doesn’t mean ALL directors are stars ✗ II: Actors and directors could be completely separate ✗

SSC CGL 2023: Statement: All fruits are healthy. No unhealthy thing is tasty. Conclusions: I. No fruit is tasty II. Some fruits are not tasty

Analysis:

• Fruits ⊂ healthy
• Healthy ∩ tasty = ∅ (nothing unhealthy is tasty)
• Therefore fruits ∩ tasty = ∅ I: No fruit is tasty — Yes, since fruits ⊂ healthy and nothing unhealthy is tasty ✓ II: Some fruits are not tasty — Also true (actually ALL fruits are not tasty) ✓

Complement Sets: “If all A are B, then no A is non-B” “If some A are B, then some A are not non-B” (trivially true)

Negation Cases:

• “All A are B” negates to “Some A are not B”
• “No A is B” negates to “Some A are B”
• “Some A are B” negates to “No A is B” or “Some A are not B”
• “Some A are not B” negates to “All A are B”

Exclusive Logic: “All A are B” ≠ “Only A are B” “All A are B” means A ⊆ B “Only A are B” means B ⊆ A (only A can be B)

Tips for Complex Statements:

1. Always check if conclusion is definitely true, not just possibly true
2. “Could be” conclusions require possibility, not certainty
3. Look for contrapositive relationships
4. When multiple conclusions are given, each is evaluated independently

---

Content adapted based on your selected roadmap duration. Switch tiers using the pill selector above.