• Call Us : 03082533000 (WhatsApp)
  • Email Us : TestPointpk.com@gmail.com
Sticky Note
Statements: All investigators are trained officers. Some trained officers are lawyers. No lawyer is an accountant. Conclusions: I. Some investigators are lawyers. II. No investigator is an accountant. III. Some trained officers are not accountants.
  1. I and II follow
  2. Only III follows
  3. II and III follow
  4. None of these
Explanation

Let's check with Venn diagrams:

Statements:

1. All investigators are trained officers. → Investigators ⊂ Trained Officers

2. Some trained officers are lawyers. → Trained Officers ∩ Lawyers ≠ ∅

3. No lawyer is an accountant. → Lawyers ∩ Accountants = ∅

Conclusions:

I. Some investigators are lawyers.

We know investigators are trained officers, and some trained officers are lawyers. But we don't know if those "some" overlap with investigators.  

→ Does not follow

II. No investigator is an accountant.  

We know no lawyer is an accountant. But we don't know if investigators are lawyers. Investigators could still be accountants since we have no direct link between investigators and accountants.  

→ Does not follow

III. Some trained officers are not accountants.

Some trained officers are lawyers. And no lawyer is an accountant.  

So those trained officers who are lawyers cannot be accountants.  

→ Follows


Answer: Only III follows


Last verified on 12-07-2026

Related MCQs

  1. I and II follow
  2. Only III follows
  3. II and III follow
  4. None of these
اس سوال کو وضاحت کے ساتھ پڑھیں

  1. Danish
  2. Ali
  3. Babar
  4. None of these
اس سوال کو وضاحت کے ساتھ پڑھیں

  1. B, C, D
  2. B, C, E
  3. A, B, D
  4. None of these
اس سوال کو وضاحت کے ساتھ پڑھیں

  1. lo
  2. se
  3. tu
  4. None of these
اس سوال کو وضاحت کے ساتھ پڑھیں

  1. Farhan
  2. Aslam
  3. Danish
  4. None of these
اس سوال کو وضاحت کے ساتھ پڑھیں

All Rights Reserved © TestPointpk.com