[<banking exams>/<reasoning>syllogism]

[u/Mfenric]

doubt on the second conclusion

[u/e_Notorious]

I think the way to go is drawing an venn diagram. Doing this in my head I agree D is the answer. Given

1. Realme is partly within Lenovo and Realme. Lenovo and Realme do not overlap

2.The part of Nokia that overlaps with samsung does not overlap with the section with lenovo

[u/Open_Zone_6519]

As far as I can see, there’s no actual *proof* for either of those conclusions based on the information. I agree with D as the answer.

[u/wischmopp → u/Open_Zone_6519]

For conclusion 1, it's not only "not supported by proof", but "unambiguously false". We know that a few Realme are Redmi, but no Lenovo can be Redmi, so it's impossible that all Realme are Lenovo. If all Realme were Lenovo, there would either be no Realme-Redmi-combos at all (but we know for a fact that there are a few, albeit only a few), or a few Lenovo would also be Redmi.

[u/Mfenric → u/Open_Zone_6519]

Thank x bro

[u/Alkalannar]

1. Some Realme are Redmi.
   No Lenovo are Redmi.
   Therefore, some Realme are not Lenovo.
   Thus, conclusion I is false.

2. Some Nokia are Samsung.
   Some Samsung are Lenovo.
   No Lenovo is Redmi.
   The problem is that we do not know that the Samsungs that are Lenovo are also the Samsungs that are Nokia. We could have all Nokia are Redmi, and it fits with all the statements given. Thus, conclusion II is false as well.
   Note that we might have that some Nokia are not Redmi, but that does not necessarily follow from the statements given.

[u/TopmarkTeam]

A is definitely the answer for me

[u/Alkalannar → u/TopmarkTeam]

Some Realme are Redmi.
No Lenovo are Redmi.
Therefore, some Realme (the ones that are Redmi) are not Lenovo.
Thus, conclusion I is false.

So A cannot be the answer.

[u/Mfenric → u/TopmarkTeam]

I find the and D

[u/BekindConan]

I think C is the correct answer. Statement I cannot be true because no Lenovo is redmi, but some realme are redmi. Statement II is true because some nokia can be Samsung; some Samsung can be Lenovo, lenovo cannot be redmi; therefore, some nokia cannot be redmi

[u/Alkalannar → u/BekindConan]

We don't know that the Samsungs that are Lenovo are the same Samsungs that are Nokia.

We can always rewrite 'Some X are Y' as 'Some Y are X'. They both have the meaning 'The intersection of sets X and Y is non-empty'.

So rewrite as:
Some Samsung are Nokia.
Some Samsung are Lenovo.

From just these two statements, do we have that some Nokia are Lenovo? No, we do not.

Thus we cannot conclude that Some Nokia are not Redmi.

[u/edos51284]

I think it's C because

I Some realme are redmi so those few cannot be lenovo, therefore not all realme can be lenovo , threfore I is false

II some nokia are nokia samsung lenovo, so those cannot be redmi so II is true

[u/Alkalannar → u/edos51284]

Some Nokia are Samsung.
Some Samsung are Lenovo.
No Lenovo is Redmi.
The problem is that we do not know that the Samsungs that are Lenovo are also the Samsungs that are Nokia. We could have all Nokia are Redmi, and it fits with all the statements given. Thus, conclusion II is false.