You performed better than of students
|Your Score||Average of all Users||Percentile|
You performed better than of students
Dodos aren’t always weak, but they are always zipzaps. Not all those that are zipzaps are weak, but they will be boings.
No. We are told that all dodos are zipzaps but we don’t know if the reverse is true.
Yes. We are told in the first sentence that all dodos are zipzaps, so a weak dodo is therefore also a zipzap.
No. We are not given any information in the question stem about animals so we cannot draw this conclusion from the passage.
Yes. We know that all dodos are zipzaps and that all zipzaps are boings, so dodos must be boings as well. Hence some boings will be dodos.
No. The last sentence tells us that more zipzaps are boings than are weak, because all zipzaps are boings but only some zipzaps are weak.
Not all D = W
All D = Z
Not all Z = W
All Z = B
All locals who like tea also like coffee. All the locals on the beach were German. No locals on the beach liked eggs. A few locals on the beach liked tea. All the locals on the beach liked photography.
No. A ‘few’ and not ‘all’ German locals on the beach liked coffee (because all locals who like tea also like coffee). We are told that all locals who like tea also like coffee, but this does not mean that all locals like tea to begin with, and not all locals are German, as we only know those on the beach were German.
Yes. Some Germans are locals as we are told the locals on the beach were German, and some locals must like tea, so some Germans therefore must like tea.
Yes. All the locals on the beach were German, and none of them liked eggs, therefore it is possible that some Germans do not like eggs.
Yes. We know that some locals like tea, so it is possible that there are some locals on the beach who like tea. All locals on the beach liked photography, therefore the conclusion does follow.
No. We don’t know for sure that there were locals on the beach who liked coffee, as we don’t know whether there were locals on the beach that liked tea. We know some locals like tea but cannot say that all locals like tea, even though we know all locals on the beach liked photography. Therefore, the conclusion does not follow.
All L = T à C
All L on beach = G
No L on beach = E
All L on beach = P
Some L = T
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:53:47
Just wondering. For the third question, wouldn't the question have to say "All Germans do not like eggs". Using some suggests that some Germans do like eggs.
Sat, 14 Aug 2021 16:21:43
don't get the 3rd one
Tue, 17 Aug 2021 11:40:05
some in syllogisms mean AT LEAST a handful and can be up to everything
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:04:21
don't get the third one either tbh
In this shopping centre, not all shops sell clothes. However, all shops in the shopping centre are at least 300 square metres, except for 2 which only sell books.
No. We know that not all shops sell clothes, which means that some shops will sell clothes. However, we do not know whether these shops are 300 metres, as they may be more.
No. We do not know if this shop is in the shopping centre, therefore we cannot tell if it is 300 square metres.
No. We are not given any information on any clothes outlets other than clothes shops, so we cannot draw this conclusion from the passage.
No. The last sentence says that the 2 shops that are not 300 square metres sell books, but we are don’t know whether they are greater or less than 300 square metres.
No. We are only given information on this shopping centre, so cannot draw a general conclusion about all shopping centres.
Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:47:29
Shouldn't the first statement be Yes because if only book stores are less than 300 square meters and there are some clothes shops then it stands that some clothes shops will be 300 square meters?
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:38:27
I agree with Keshavi. I was confused by the answer key as well for the first one.
Sun, 29 Aug 2021 20:14:30
it doesnt state anywhere that some are exactly 300sqm so the answer is still no for number 1
Thu, 02 Sep 2021 17:14:46
All shops that sell books are bigger than 300 square metres should be Yes cos according to the question, "all shops in the shopping centre are at least 300 square metres" which means all shops are at least 300 square metres big/large so the 2 book shops must be greater/larger than 300 square metres
A scientist is only considered ‘famous’ if they write three or more research papers. Some scientists are celebrities. All celebrities are famous. Some famous people write books.
No. We know that some famous people write books but some people who write books may not be famous. Since we are not given any further information on this we cannot draw this conclusion from the passage.
Yes. We know that some scientists are famous, and that some famous people write books. Therefore, this is possible.
No. Even though we are told that all celebrities are famous, this does not necessarily mean that the reverse is true.
No. We are not given any information on the relationship between celebrities and painters so we cannot draw this conclusion.
No. We know Rachel is not considered famous as she wrote less than 3 research papers, so therefore cannot be a celebrity.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 06:58:00
For statement 4, Some celebrities could be painters, this is possible and not something impossible for it to be "no", so it should be yes.
Thu, 16 Sep 2021 06:07:09
Mustafa the idea is to get to see if you can draw this conclusion from the text and not whether it is possible or not. hope this helps
Some bears are mammals. No mammals are birds. All birds have wings.
No. We know some bears are mammals and that no mammals are birds. We are not given any information on the relationship between bears and birds, so cannot draw this conclusion.
Yes. We know that no mammals are birds, so the reverse must also be true.
Yes. The bears that are mammals cannot be birds.
No. We don’t know the relationship between mammals and wings but there is a possibility that a mammal could have wings, so the conclusion does not follow.
No. Some birds have wings therefore some birds will not have wings.
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:55:33
For the last question, using "some" suggests that other birds do not have wings.
Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:41:07
In ucat the meaning of "some" is "more than 1 but less than all. A part of it, not all of it.". This makes the last one "NO"
Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:44:58
Some bears are not birds. Some birds have wings. Wouldn't this both be, "no"? As some implies that some bears are birds and some birds don't have wings?
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:31:17
The use of some in the last statement would mean that there are some birds without wings, which would make the statement incorrect.
All boots are snoops and some boots are drones. Most drones are welps.
No. It is true that most drones are welps but we cannot say that the reverse is true.
Yes. The snoops which are boots are also drones. This is because all boots are snoops and some of these boots which are snoops are also drones.
No. We cannot determine if there is a relationship between boots and welps, so we cannot draw this conclusion.
No. The reverse is true but we don’t have enough information to support this conclusion.
No. We don’t know the relationship between snoops and welps so cannot make this conclusion.
Sun, 18 Jul 2021 15:34:55
Statement 3 If some boots are drones and most drones are welps, then some boots must be welps. Therefore conclusion follows as YES
Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:24:20
I agree, statement 3 should be a YES
Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:23:29
Thought so too, but you can have a drone that is not a welp being the boot.
Mon, 26 Jul 2021 12:02:09
Jay I think that's why it says some. I also agree that statement 3 is yes.
Sun, 01 Aug 2021 17:32:04
how answer come no please explain in 4 th option why all snops are boots because in the first sentence they mentioned that all boots are snoops
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:42:22
I agree too that statement 3 should be a YES.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:44:24
To smirthy, although it says that all boots are snoops, it doesn't work the other way around. Some other snoops may not be boots. Example, if all apples are fruits, doesn't mean that all fruits are apples. Hope this helps :)
Wed, 18 Aug 2021 22:08:24
statment 3 is 'no' because it says that most drones are welps and some boots are drones. If you visualise it as a Venn diagram, we are only 100% sure that welp will overlap with drone, it COULD overlap with boots and snoots as well but we are not sure about it. Basically, it only says that most drones are welps, we cannot be sure how many (or if any) of these are boots or snoots as well. I hope this helps. If not really try to draw a Venn diagram with the things that are only 100% sure
Salmon and Tuna are both types of fish. All fishes are sharks. Only angry sharks eat humans. Sharks are always pink.
Yes. We are told that sharks only eat humans if they are angry, so the conclusion does follow.
Yes. We know that the salmon is a type of fish, and all fishes are sharks, so a salmon must be a shark.
Yes. We know that tuna is a type of fish, and that all fishes are sharks, and all sharks are pink, so tuna fish must therefore be pink.
No. Like above, we are told that all fishes are sharks, so a tuna fish must be a shark.
No. A salmon is a type of fish and is therefore a shark. If a shark is angry, they can eat humans, so a salmon could eat a human if they are angry.
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 11:45:42
The third part is wrong because the question says ALL tuna are sharks and ALL sharks are pink therefore "some" would be incorrect as it infers some tuna are NOT pink. I demand justice
Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:26:15
Unfortunately that is semantics. By logical definition some is (o, x], meaning some is more than zero but also can be all.
Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:40:56
I agree with Allan Thomas
Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:44:36
Officialy, the Pearson definition of "some" is "at least one but not all". This makes 3 "NO"
Not all people present at the conference were research associates, but all the research associates present at the conference were over 60 and some research associates were not male.
Yes. All the research associates were over 60 and if some research associates were not male that means some were, so there would be some males over 60.
Yes. It is true that some over 60s would have been research associates as we are told this in the passage. We also know that there were some male research associates, but this does not necessarily mean that we can have a male research associate over the age of 60, as the male research associates could be younger.
No. We are not given any information on what other types of people there were – we only know that research associates were present and others, so we cannot draw this conclusion.
Yes. We know that the research associates were over 60 and that there are only some male research associates, so we can assume there are also some female research associates over the age of 60.
No. We are not told if there were any other professionals who were also over 60 so we cannot draw this conclusion.
Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:54:53
For the second statement, if we know that some research associates were male and that ALL research associates were over 60 then surely that means that some over 60s at the conference were both research associates and male (making the statement YES and not no) ?
Sun, 18 Jul 2021 15:29:23
for second statement - All research associates were over 60, so there can not be any research associates younger than 60, so the conclusion should follow as YES
Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:30:20
That second statement needs a review. There's no way it is a no..
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 07:05:27
The statement for the second question is a YES, the passage says "all the research associates present at the conference were over 60" this is regardless of gender. This needs to be reviewed.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:48:11
I also agree that statement 2 should be a YES.
Sat, 07 Aug 2021 15:04:21
Not to be political or anything, but surely the idea that all non-males are females is using external knowledge and therefore invalid?
Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:22:27
there is no way that the second one is no, it clearly states that ALL research associates were over 60 so the explanation makes no sense because theres no possibility that they can be younger if ALL are 60+
Sat, 21 Aug 2021 14:25:10
Guess we can all agree that the second statement needs a review
Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:00:00
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks the answer to the second statement is wrong.
Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:26:55
All research associates were over 60, and since we know some of them were male, doesn’t that make statement 2 correct?
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 10:45:34
second statement does need a review^^
Brian is a librarian. None of the books are kept in the storeroom apart from books by JK Rowling or Anthony Horowitz. All books are enjoyable reads except for dystopian novels.
Yes. We are told that all books are enjoyable except dystopian novels, so if it is not a dystopian novel it must be enjoyable.
No. Books in the storeroom will either be by JK Rowling or Anthony Horowitz, so it could be Anthony Horowitz, therefore the conclusion does not follow.
No. We are not told whether books by JK Rowling are dystopian or not, so they will be enjoyable if they are not dystopian and won’t be enjoyable if they are dystopian.
No. Books in the storeroom could still be enjoyable as long as they are not dystopian novels.
Some leaves are green. Bushes are green. Forests are made up of leaves and bushes. Bush A can be found in this forest.
No. We are not given any information on other types of bushes in the forest so we cannot draw this conclusion.
No. Although this might be true, we don’t have enough information to prove this, so the conclusion does not follow.
No. Although this could be true if the leaves were also green, we don’t know whether they are, we only know that a bush which is green can be found, so we cannot draw this conclusion.
No. Bushes are green, but we are not told explicitly that bushes have green leaves, so we cannot assume this.
Yes. We know that bush A can be found in this forest, therefore we know that some bushes are found in forests.
Most lions can roar, but no individual that roars can fly.
Yes. Most lions roar and things that roar cannot fly, so most lions cannot fly.
Yes. We know that nothing that roars can fly, so the reverse must also be true.
Yes. As above
No. We know that most lions can roar, but this also implies that some do not roar. Those that do not roar might be able to fly so we cannot rule out this possibility.
No. We are not given any information on other individuals that can roar. There may be more of other individuals that roar than lions, so this does not follow.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 07:06:39
For statement 1, how do we know that a Lion is an individual, aren't these two different categories??
Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:38:12
Number 3 should be "ALL things that roar do not fly"
Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:50:13
For number 3 is "all things that roar do not fly". The Pearson definition of 'some' is 'at least 1 but not all'; by saying that 'some things that roar do not fly' you can draw the inference (based on the official definition) that the is at least 1 that roars and fly, which is wrong.
Kiwis and bananas are both types of fruit. Neither of them have seeds but they both have peel. Zucchinis have peel but are not a fruit.
No. We are not told this information in the passage so we cannot draw this conclusion.
Yes. We are told explicitly that all 3 of these have peel.
No. We are not given any information on whether any other fruit may have peel as we are only told about bananas and kiwis, so we cannot draw this conclusion with insufficient information.
No. Kiwis do not have seeds so a fruit with no seeds can be a kiwi.
No. We are not given enough information in the passage to make this conclusion.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:42:12
On the 3rd question, ive answered 'yes' and it says its wrong, even thought the explanation says that 'yes' is the right answer.
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:56:59
oh wait my bad
All juices are non-alcoholic drinks and all non-alcoholic drinks are beverages. Juices are not beers.
No. We are not given this information in the passage so cannot draw this conclusion.
No. We are not given this information in the passage so cannot make this conclusion.
Yes. We know that juices are not beers and that they are non-alcoholic drinks, so we know that some non-alcoholic drinks are not beers.
No. All juices are non-alcoholic drinks but this does not mean that the reverse is true.
Yes. All non-alcoholic drinks are beverages and all juices are non-alcoholic drinks, so all juices must be beverages.
All mammals have fur and are warm blooded. Some mammals are elephants with large ears. Some elephants have larger ears than others.
No. We don’t know whether all elephants are mammals or whether just the ones with large ears are mammals.
Yes. We are told that some elephants are mammals so therefore they must have fur and be warm blooded.
No. We know that some mammals are elephants with large ears but this does not mean that the reverse is true.
No. We know that some elephants have larger ears than others, but those with smaller ears may not necessarily have what is considered ‘small’ ears.
Yes. We know that some elephants have all these features, but there may also be some mammals that are not elephants and do not have large ears but that will have fur and are warm blooded.
Mon, 09 Aug 2021 11:21:28
How can you accept the final conclusion (i.e. false)? That conclusion does not follow
Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:46:47
Statement 5: We haven't been told that some mammals do not have large ears so how can we say for sure that " there may also be some mammals that... do not have large ears "
Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:59:26
For statement 5 there is no definitive proof that some mammals do not have large ears, why is the answer explanation an assumption?
All of Susan’s shirts are blue. All of Jack’s shirts are orange. This shirt is either Susan’s or Jack’s.
Yes. Susan’s shirts are all blue and Jack’s shirts are all orange so if this shirt is orange it will be Jack’s and if it is Susan’s it will be blue.
No. We only know about this shirt, we do not know about other shirts so cannot draw this conclusion.
No. If the shirt is not orange it must be Susan’s so the conclusion does not follow.
Yes. If the shirt is orange it must be Jack’s.
No. We only know that if THIS shirt is blue it will be Susan’s but cannot generalise for all shirts.
Sat, 29 May 2021 08:46:20
for the last q shouldn't the answer be yes since the very first line of the question said all of Susan's shirts are blue
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 11:52:09
Mr Tiwari the last question suggests ALL blue shirts are Susan's however the statement states that all of SUSAN'S shirts are blue. What you are saying is every blue shirt on the planet belongs to Susan. ur trash my guy
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 21:47:23
My bad bro I didn't mean to call you trash it was a mistake. Please can you accept my apologies I also don't know how to delete the comment my bad
Not all people present at the book fair were students, but all students were under the age of 16 and some students were not boys.
Yes. We know that some students were boys and that all students were under the age of 16, so this conclusion is correct.
Yes. Students at the book fair were under the age of 16 and some were male so there could be male students present at the fair under the age of 16.
No. There could be male students under 16 at the fair.
Yes. We know that not all the students were boys and that all the students were under 16, so some male students present must also be boys under 16.
No. We are not given any information of those who aren’t students at the book fair, but we do know that not everyone at the book fair was a student, so there could be people who aren’t students who are under the age of 16 and are also male.
Sat, 28 Aug 2021 08:25:25
for 2- if it only says "some students were not boys", how can we assume that some students were male
Wed, 08 Sep 2021 10:55:19
If some students are not boys then it implies that some students are boys too
Mon, 20 Dec 2021 02:17:35
the premise said most students were under 16 not all
Sat, 15 Jan 2022 05:48:04
For the first statement's worked solution, we do not know that all students are under the age of 16. The question says "MOST students were under the age of 16."
Everyone in the museum except for Jane, like drinking coffee. More than 1 person likes butter on their toast.
No. We know that more than 1 person likes butter on their toast, but this does not necessarily mean that Jane does.
No. The person who does not like butter on their toast might be Jane, who does not like coffee.
Yes. Everyone except Jane likes coffee so the conclusion follows.
No. We do not know Jane’s opinion on butter on toast so cannot make this conclusion.
Yes. It is possible for someone to like drinking coffee and also have butter on toast because more than 1 person likes butter on their toast and everyone except jane likes coffee.
Camel milk is always sour and never delicious. All Cow’s milk is delicious and no cow milk is sour. This milk is either cow’s milk or camel milk.
Yes. If the milk is delicious it is Cow’s milk if it is sour it is Camel milk.
Yes. Cow’s milk is delicious but camel milk is sour, so it must be Camel’s milk if it is not delicious.
No. This is a generalized statement that we cannot make from the information given in the passage.
No. If the milk is sour it will be Camel milk, if it is not sour it will be cow’s milk.
Yes. We are told that all cow’s milk is delicious so it cannot be disgusting.
Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:30:35
2nd statement: if it is NOT delicious it is NOT cow's... that statement seems correct?
Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:17:13
Shouldn't the last one be "No" as there is no indication of "disgusting" in the passage so we cannot make that conclusion?
Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:53:08
I agree with Sash. The last one should be a NO, but please explain more if anyone can help. :)
Sat, 07 Aug 2021 15:06:39
Delicious and disgusting are only opposing concepts in real life, so the last one must be no. In a world where dodos are zipzaps, it isn't too far fetched to imply something delicious is also disgusting.
Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:33:18
I completely agree with all this ^^
Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:01:31
I agree with Jonathan too
All diamonds are shiny and some metals are shiny. All shiny things can become dull over time.
No. Some metals are shiny, but some may not be shiny, so it could have been dull from the start.
No. Like above, some metals can also be dull from the start.
No. We are not given any information about graphite so cannot assume it is not shiny.
No. We are only told about metals being shiny but there could be some shiny things that are not metals.
No. All diamonds are shiny and all shiny things CAN become dull over time, but not all of them will, so the conclusion does not follow.
At costa I can either buy an iced coffee or a hot chocolate. Iced coffee is expensive.
No. We know that iced coffee is expensive but we don’t know the cost of hot chocolate relative to iced coffee, so cannot make this conclusion.
No. We know I can either buy an iced coffee or hot chocolate but that does not mean they don’t sell other drinks.
No. Again, we aren’t given any information on the price of hot chocolate so cannot make this conclusion.
Yes. Iced coffee is expensive and is sold at costa, so some costa drinks must be expensive.
No. We do not know that hot chocolate is made from cocoa as we are not told this in the passage, so we cannot make this conclusion.
Sat, 04 Sep 2021 18:27:13
UCAT has defined "some" as not all, but MORE than 1 (i.e. some cannot equal 1) therefore, statement 4, we can't assume there is more than one drink that is expensive
Below is a summary of your answers. You can review your questions in three (3) different ways.
The buttons in the lower right-hand corner correspond to these choices:
1. Review all of your questions and answers.
2. Review questions that are incomplete.
3. Review questions that are flagged for review. (Click the 'flag' icon to change the flag for review status.)
You may also click on a question number to link directly to its location in the exam.
This review section allows you to view the answers you made and see whether they were correct or not. Each question accessed from this screen has an 'Explain Answer' button in the top left hand side. By clicking on this you will obtain an explanation as to the correct answer.
At the bottom of this screen you can choose to 'Review All' answers, 'Review Incorrect' answers or 'Review Flagged' answers. Alternatively you can go to specific questions by opening up any of the sub-tests below.
It would be great to have a 15m chat to discuss a personalised plan and answer any questions
Pick a time-slot that works best for you ?
If you're ready and keen to get started click the button below to book your first 2 hour 1-1 tutoring lesson with us. Connect with a tutor from a university of your choice in minutes. (Use FAST5 to get 5% Off!)Buy Now for £70