Show an inclusion, then locate the witness.
Review inclusion, disjoint categories and explicit existence. Your count records six answers in this set, with no population comparison.
A correct count describes six selected tasks in this section. It is not a reasoning rank or professional qualification. Every count opens all explanations and this complete guide.
Read the count as a review list
The six questions in this section ask what follows about categories. A correct answer means that your selected option agrees with the stated premises and this edition’s answer key. It does not measure every kind of reasoning, establish an IQ, or describe your personality. Read the individual explanations even after a perfect attempt: recognizing a familiar sentence is different from being able to justify the same relationship in an unfamiliar setting.
Track inclusion and existence separately
Write each universal rule as an inclusion: every A is B puts the A group inside the B group. A “no A is B” rule keeps their overlap empty. Mark a separate witness for “some”; do not create a witness just because a universal sentence mentions a group. Follow a witness through an inclusion one step at a time, while keeping the original group labels attached to it throughout the reasoning.
Try a fresh overlap example
Suppose every embossed envelope in a fictional tray is stamped, and some violet envelope is embossed. That violet, embossed envelope must also be stamped, so some violet envelope is stamped. A different violet envelope may be plain and unstamped; another stamped envelope may be orange. Both possibilities fit the rules. This example shows exactly why an existential conclusion is justified while either universal converse would be an extra assumption.
Search for an allowed counterexample
When an option says “all”, try adding one object outside the proposed overlap without breaking a premise. If such an object is allowed, that option is not forced. When an option says “none”, check whether the premises actually prohibit the overlap or merely fail to mention it. Failure to establish that something exists is not proof that it cannot exist. “Some” also means at least one here, rather than some but not all.
Explain one deduction before another attempt
Choose one missed item and explain where its witness came from, which inclusion was used, and what the tempting wrong answer adds. Then change the category names and check whether your explanation still works. Keep any notes locally if you want them; the public guide link contains no personal answers. Repeating these same six items is practice with known material, so a later higher count is not evidence of a measured gain in general intelligence.