Question

A. Mathew and Paul are brothers.
B. Siblings are known to quarrel often.
C. Mathew and Paul don’t quarrel.
D. All those who quarrel are siblings.
E. Paul and Mathew quarrel often.
F. Mathew and Paul cannot be siblings.

• A. BDE
• B. ADF
• C. CDE
• D. ABE

Hint:

Always look for a chain of logic where one statement implies or supports another. Avoid sets with internal contradictions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Let us evaluate option (a): BDE B: Siblings are known to quarrel often.
D: All those who quarrel are siblings.
E: Paul and Mathew quarrel often.
Now we analyze the logical connection: From E, we know: Paul and Mathew quarrel often.
From D, we learn: All those who quarrel are siblings.
\[ \text{If Paul and Mathew quarrel (E)} + \text{All who quarrel are siblings (D)} \Rightarrow \text{Paul and Mathew are siblings} \] Then, B supports this by stating a general truth: Siblings are known to quarrel often, reinforcing the idea that quarrelling is common among siblings, hence validating E. So, these three statements are internally consistent, logically linked, and support each other—making option (a) the best choice. Now check other options briefly: (b) ADF: A: Mathew and Paul are brothers.
D: All those who quarrel are siblings.
F: Mathew and Paul cannot be siblings.
Contradiction: A says they are siblings, F says they are not. (c) CDE: C: Mathew and Paul don’t quarrel.
D: All who quarrel are siblings.
E: Paul and Mathew quarrel often.
Contradiction between C and E. Invalid set. (d) ABE: A: Mathew and Paul are brothers.
B: Siblings quarrel often.
E: Paul and Mathew quarrel often.
Although related, it lacks a syllogistic link like D in option (a), which confirms that quarrelling implies sibling status.