All mallards are ducks (true) and all ducks are birds (true), so all mallards are birds (has to be true if the first two statements are true).
You are watching: If all bloops are razzies and all razzies are lazzies, then are all bloops definitely lazzies?
(Note that the "all"s are necessary in the first two parts in order for the conclusion to be true.
Without the "all"s, you can say something like: "Bulldogs are dogs. Some dogs are poodles. Therefore, bulldogs are poodles." Obviously, this is false.)
But don"t be hard on your cнιcκ for getting it wrong. Poultry are not very good at this kind of puzzle.
If All Bloops Are Razzies
I think false, just because all bloops are razzies doesn t mean that all the bloops are lazzies, what if there is more razzies than there are bloops? that means that some of the razzies are bloops, some are razzies, therefore not all are lazzies despite all razzies being lazzies.
Shore, yer right on the button.
Reverse it, Lazzies are Razzies, Razzies are Bloops, so Razzies are Bloops and Lazzies also.
See more: Who Wrote The Book Split Personalities Paperback, Cant Solve This Joke
Yer cнιcκ is confused becuz she been listening to you FAR too long.