Guide to Formal Logic Questions –

Existence Statements
Contents
Introduction - Premise Types ........................................................................ 1
Existence Statements ................................................................................... 2
1. Amounts .......................................................................................... 2
2. Percentiles/probabilities .................................................................... 5
3. Specific instances .............................................................................. 6
Additional Principals..................................................................................... 6
Combining generalisations and existence statements ...................................... 6
Conjunctions: and/or/either/neither ............................................................. 7
Generalisation equals existence! ................................................................... 7

Introduction - Premise Types

As you’ve learned in the guide for generalisation statements, formal logic tests
comprise questions in which an informative paragraph is given. These paragraphs
should be considered true. Multiple-choice answer responses are then presented,
from which only one should be chosen. Your answer will be based either on the only
response choice that can be validly concluded from the text or the only response
choice that cannot be validly concluded from the text (depending on the specific
instructions in each question).

The informative paragraph comprises a few logical statements, which should be

considered premises. Each response choice will relate to at least one premise, and you
should decide if it is logically equivalent or can be inferred from that premise.

In this series of guides, you will become familiar with all the possible premise types for
these questions. You will also learn how to conclude if the statements in the response
choices can or cannot be concluded from the information.

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
1
There are two types of premises used to convey important information in logical
reasoning questions:

1. Generalisation statements – stating something always happens with

something else (A always leads to B).
2. Existence statements – stating something sometimes happens with something
else (A sometimes leads to B).

In this guide, you will learn about existence statements.

Existence Statements
Existence statements convey far less information than generalisations. They can be
divided into three types:

1. Amounts – a few/some/many/most police officers wear uniforms.

2. Percentiles/probabilities – 75% of police officers wear uniforms; police officers
have a 75% chance of wearing uniforms.
3. Specific instances – Bob is a police officer wearing a uniform.

Unlike generalisations statements, which say something about everyone in a certain

group (all A are B), existence statements say something about parts of a group. This is
illustrated in the Venn diagram below.

A Ω
B

1. Amounts
Existence statements using amounts are the second most prevalent type of question
on logical reasoning tests. These questions ask what can and cannot be concluded
from the given amounts.

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
2
Amount statements are imprecise, using keywords such as: a few/some/not
all/many/most of A are B.

Key principle for amount statements:

When a sentence involves amounts–stating a portion of group A are B (e.g., most/a

few/some police officers wear uniforms)–if no other information is given, it can be
concluded that at least one A exists which is B, possibly more than one A is B, and
possibly all A are B! E.g., there is at least one police officer wearing a uniform, possibly
more than one, and possibly all police officers wear uniforms!

Although this principle can be counterintuitive, an amount statement should be read

as 'at least most/a few/some', instead of 'exactly most/a few/some', as information
is given for only a part of the group, and there could be more of that group that we do
not know of. Notice that no information is given regarding whether police officers who
do not wear uniforms even exist! We only know something about some police officers.
Therefore, from a statement that some A are B, the existence of A which is not B does
not follow.

A ? ? Ω
? ?
B
Some
? ? A few
? Many
?
?

As illustrated, a portion of A is B. However, we have no information about the other

parts of A. More of A could also be B, some could not be B, or all of A could be B. We
cannot know for certain. That is why all we can know for certain is there is at least one
A which is B.

Following are more principles regarding inferences from amount statements.

*Frequencies are also amount statements, and they act the same way logically, using
keywords such as: seldom/sometimes/often A are B.

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
3
Many  some

Notice there is a hierarchy among the different amounts: 'a few' and 'some' are
smaller than 'a lot' or 'most'. According to logic principals, it is always okay to say there
are less but not more. If there are many (a lot, most etc.), then it can be concluded
there must be some (a few). However, if it is stated that there are some, it cannot be
deduced there are many! E.g., from the statement that many police officers wear
uniforms, it can be concluded there are some police officers who wear uniforms.
However, from the statement there are some police officers who wear uniforms, it
cannot be inferred that many police officers wear uniforms!

Some A are B  therefore some B are A

Note that, according to the last principle, A and B are not always interchangeable
(cannot always be reversed in order)! If some A are B, then the transposing of the
sentence–some B are A–can be inferred. E.g., if some police officers wear uniforms, it
can be concluded that some uniformed personnel are police officers. This transposing
principle does not hold true when the groups have different amounts associated with
them: most A are B, 70% of A are B, almost none of A are B, all A are B (all of which
are not interchangeable). E.g., if most police officers wear uniforms, it cannot be
inferred that most uniformed personnel are police officers!

Some A and some B

According to formal logic principles, the information that two groups exist does not
suggest they necessarily overlap and share a common element. For example, it is
stated that some people are not paid enough (group A) and that some people are hard
workers (group B). The conclusion there are hardworking people not getting paid
enough (a combination of the two groups, A which are B) cannot be concluded from
the information.

Note this principle is true unless both groups are described as applying to more than
half of this population, using descriptive amounts such as 'most'. E.g., most people are
not paid enough and most people are hard workers. Here, because both groups apply
to more than 50% of the population, some overlapping between the two should be

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
4
inferred. Therefore, we can conclude that there are some instances of hardworking
people who are not paid enough.

2. Percentiles/probabilities
Percentiles/probabilities are the second type of existence statements. They are less
common, but they are still important to understand.

Unlike amount statements, which are imprecise (a portion of A is B), percentiles

provide exact information! From the statement that 30% of A are B, we also know
70% of A are not B! From this percentile type statement, we have complete
information about A regarding B. For example, from the statement that only 30% of
police officers wear uniforms, we know 70% of police officers do not wear them.

Note that, although we have complete information about group A, we don't have
precise information about group B! From the statement that 30% of A are B, we cannot
say 30% of B are A. We have no information about how much of B is A. For example,
from the statement that 30% of police officers wear uniforms, we cannot conclude
anything about the entire group of uniformed people. For instance, thinking that 30%
of all people wearing uniforms are policemen would be a mistaken conclusion.
(Although this could be the case, the statement does not logically support such an
assumption.)

A Ω
B
70% 30%
Not B B

Percentiles equal probabilities

Probabilities or proportions are the same as percentiles! The only change lies with the
formulation of the specific question. The statement that 30% of police officers wear
uniforms logically equals the statement that, when randomly selecting a police officer,
the chance he is wearing a uniform is 30%.

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
5
3. Specific instances
Specific instance statements are the third and final of the existence type statements.
Like amount statements, specific instance statements are common on logical
reasoning tests.

A specific instance statement usually gives an example about one event or person, in
contrast to a generalising statement. E.g., Bob is a police officer. Another example
would be a specific instance statement about a combination of two or more pieces of
information: Bob is a police officer wearing a uniform.

Specific instance statements can be transposed (there is one A which is B is like saying
there is one B which is A). E.g., if a police officer is wearing a uniform, then there is at
least one person wearing a uniform who is a police officer.

Additional Principals
Combining generalisations and existence statements
A generalising type statement (all A  are B) can combine with an existence type
statement (there are some/few/many A) to lead to the inference that if A happened
then B also happened. If it is stated that (1) all police officers on duty wear uniforms
and that (2) Bob is a police officer on duty, it can be concluded from these two
statements that Bob is wearing a uniform.

Example 1 (conclusion follows):

Statement 1 (generalisation): All ambulance drivers have sharp senses.
Statement 2 (existence): Bob is an ambulance driver.
Conclusion: Bob has sharp senses.
This conclusion follows, because Bob is an ambulance driver, and all ambulance
drivers have sharp senses.

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
6
 Example 2 (conclusion does not follow):
Statement 1 (generalisation): All ambulance drivers have sharp senses.
Statement 2 (existence): Bob has sharp senses.
Conclusion: Bob is an ambulance driver.
This conclusion does not follow, because although Bob has sharp senses, not
everyone with sharp senses is necessarily an ambulance driver!

Conjunctions: and/or/either/neither
It is important to understand the difference between these keywords, because they
all combine two pieces of information in distinct ways. Stating that A is either B or C
(police officers either do field work or paperwork) means A can be B or C, but not both
B + C simultaneously (police officers cannot do both field work and paperwork). This
differs from the statement that A is B or C. In this case, A can be B or C or both B + C
simultaneously (police officers can either do field work, paperwork, or both
simultaneously!). Last, stating A is neither B nor C simply means A is not B, not C, and
not both A + C together.

Important: in the Watson Glaser Test, Generalization equals

existence! (All A  are B = the existence of A and B!)
If you are familiar with formal logic tests and their rules, you might know that in most,
a generalization type premise is considered hypothetical and therefore does not equal
an existence of the subject in the statement. In such tests, for example, the premises
“all bears are blue” and “all blue things are nice” will not lead to the conclusion that
“some bears are nice”, because the two premises are generalizations and therefore
do not equal existence. However, this is not the case in the Watson Glaser Test. In
this test, you are allowed to assume the existence of any group mentioned in the
premises, even if it only appears as part of a generalizing statement. The conclusion
“some bears are nice” does, therefore, follow from the premises in the Watson Glaser
Test.

Good luck!

Copyright: http://www.jobtestprep.co.uk
7