Deductive Logic & SyllogismsSome conclusions must follow; several here may or may not — refusing the unwarranted leap is what scores.
Deductive Logic & Syllogisms measures pure deduction in workplace dress: categorical syllogisms, valid and invalid conditional forms, disjunctive elimination, chained implications and contrapositive versus converse. Twenty-two items in 20 minutes, a banded score, the inference form named for every item.
Formal logic, tested on sentences you hear at work
All auditors are accountants and some accountants are lawyers — which conclusion must be true, and which merely might be? If the demo works the client signs, if the client signs two engineers are hired, and the demo worked — what follows? If P then Q, if R then not-Q, and both P and R hold — what has gone wrong? Twenty-two items cover categorical syllogisms, modus ponens and modus tollens alongside the invalid forms most people fall for, disjunctive elimination, chained implications, the contrapositive against the converse and the inverse, and sets of statements that cannot all be true at once.
The bank is original and follows formal-logic testing conventions, with every key verified against propositional logic. Several items are keyed to the answer that the conclusion may or may not follow, because refusing an unwarranted inference is exactly the discipline being measured — and the distractors are the conclusions that sound right, the converse mistaken for the contrapositive, the particular treated as universal. Every explanation names the inference form or the fallacy and shows the counterexample where one exists, so the review teaches the logic rather than the answer.
The report scores Logical Reasoning as a banded competency from Emerging to Exceptional, with a coaching interpretation written for roles that live on rules and conditions — audit, compliance, legal operations, policy, analytics and engineering. The AI-written narrative reads across your misses to say which fallacy recurs: affirming the consequent, the illicit converse, over-reading a some. The question-by-question review explains all 22 items, and the growth plan turns your recurring fallacy into a checking habit you can apply to the next policy document or requirement.
What you walk away with
Your 0–100 score is banded Emerging, Developing, Strong or Exceptional with an interpretation written for audit, compliance, policy, analytics and engineering roles — what a Strong deducer catches in a requirements document that a Developing one waves through.
Because each distractor is a specific invalid form, the review can say which one you fall for — affirming the consequent, mistaking converse for contrapositive, treating some as all — and the narrative tells you which recurs across your 22 answers.
Where a conclusion does not follow, the explanation shows the case that makes the premises true and the conclusion false, so may or may not stops being a hedge and becomes a demonstrable verdict you can defend in a review meeting.
The plan converts your recurring fallacy into a checking habit — write the conditional, form its contrapositive, hunt the counterexample — with practice directions and a pointer to the critical-reasoning test once the band is Strong.
What comes back
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
One number, one band, and a two-sentence summary of what the band means for you — then the breakdown that explains it.
Assembled from your lowest competencies, in order — not a generic checklist.
Built for
- Professionals in audit, compliance, legal operations, policy and risk who reason from rules daily
- Analysts and engineers who must decide what a requirement does and does not imply
- Candidates for reasoning rounds in consulting, banking and management-entrance processes
- Hiring teams screening roles where an unwarranted inference becomes a control failure
A conclusion that sounds right and does not follow is how a control fails on paper.
Twenty-two deductions in 20 minutes, each explained by its inference form or its counterexample.
Take free · full report ₹150 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
Whether you can tell what necessarily follows from a set of statements — and, just as importantly, what does not. Twenty-two items in 20 minutes cover categorical syllogisms, valid and invalid conditional forms, disjunctive elimination, chained implications, contrapositive versus converse and inverse, and consistency detection, all phrased in workplace language. It is for audit, compliance, policy, risk, analytics and engineering professionals, and for candidates facing a reasoning round.
Each item has one key verified against propositional logic. Several are keyed to the verdict that the conclusion may or may not follow, and the distractors are the conclusions that sound right — the converse, the over-read particular — so an intuitive guess lands reliably on a fallacy. Correct answers roll into a banded Logical Reasoning score from 0 to 100, Emerging to Exceptional. The bands describe your current deductive discipline, not a cut-off.
Twenty minutes for 22 items in one sitting, on any device. The report is generated immediately from your responses: overall banded score, a Logical Reasoning bar with coaching interpretation, an AI-written narrative naming your recurring fallacy, strengths and development areas, a prioritised growth plan and a question-by-question review giving the inference form or the counterexample for every item. Everything is included; there is nothing further to unlock.
Candidates should learn the named fallacy behind each miss, practise forming the contrapositive before accepting any conditional conclusion, and retake to see the band move before a consulting, banking or management-entrance round. Hiring teams use the band as a consistent screen for control, policy and requirements roles, and the counterexample explanations as a structured interview prompt. The report is yours to keep and share.
Yes. Valid inference is the same in every language and jurisdiction; the items use neutral workplace terms — auditors, engineers, demos, clients — with no currency or local content, and the formats follow formal-logic testing conventions used internationally. Bands describe performance rather than rank against a national group. The test is priced in INR and USD, with the live price shown on this page in your currency.
Numerical, verbal, logical, abstract, spatial, data and workplace-judgment banks — each an original item bank with every rule stated in the explanation, scored per competency and reported with a banded profile and a growth plan. Sit one, or build a battery from several.
See the aptitude catalogue →Methodology: Original AssessAll item bank following formal-logic testing conventions (valid vs invalid inference forms, contrapositive discrimination). Keys verified against propositional logic. Not affiliated with any third-party instrument.