Correct Answer: B

Explanation: From Statement 1, P is a subset of Q — every element of P is also an element of Q. From Statement 2, R and Q are completely disjoint — they share no elements whatsoever.

Since every element of P belongs to Q, and Q and R have no intersection, no element of P can belong to R. This conclusion is definite, not merely probable.

Why not A? The claim that some P may be in R is not a possibility under these conditions — it is ruled out entirely by the given constraints.

Why not C? Statement 3 explicitly states that some elements of Q are not in P, which directly contradicts the claim that all of Q is within P.

Why not D? Partial overlap between R and P would require them to share at least one element — this is logically impossible given that P is inside Q and Q is disjoint from R.

References

Aggarwal, R. S. (2021). A modern approach to logical reasoning. S. Chand & Company. (Relevant pages — pp. 1–25: Analogy, Verbal, Letter and Number; pp. 30–55: Classification; pp. 90–120: Venn Diagrams and Logical Diagrams)

Madan, K. V. S. (2023). UGC-NET/JRF/SET — Teaching and research aptitude: Paper I. Upkar Prakashan. (Relevant pages — pp. 85–102: Verbal Analogies; pp. 108–120: Classification; pp. 128–145: Venn Diagrams and Reasoning Logical Diagrams)

Logical Diagrams

SELF STUDY

Structure of Arguments

Quick practice

Question 1 of 5

Get unlimited practice with NTA-UGC-NET & SET Exams subscription