All birds have wings. All wings are feathers. What can we infer about birds?

All birds have wings. All wings are feathers. What can we infer about birds?

• A. Birds have feathers.
• B. Birds do not have feathers.
• C. Some birds have feathers only if they have wings.
• D. Wings are not related to feathers.

Answer: (A)

From the statements, every bird has wings and every wing is a feather. This creates a chain: birds ⊆ wings ⊆ feathers, which means every bird is a feathered creature. So the direct and universal conclusion is that birds have feathers. The other options clash with this chain. Saying birds do not have feathers contradicts the fact that all wings are feathers and all birds have wings. Saying wings aren’t related to feathers ignores the established link that wings are a subset of feathers. The option about some birds having feathers only if they have wings mixes a conditional that isn’t the straightforward, universal consequence about all birds; the clear takeaway from the given statements is that all birds have feathers.

From the statements, every bird has wings and every wing is a feather. This creates a chain: birds ⊆ wings ⊆ feathers, which means every bird is a feathered creature. So the direct and universal conclusion is that birds have feathers.

The other options clash with this chain. Saying birds do not have feathers contradicts the fact that all wings are feathers and all birds have wings. Saying wings aren’t related to feathers ignores the established link that wings are a subset of feathers. The option about some birds having feathers only if they have wings mixes a conditional that isn’t the straightforward, universal consequence about all birds; the clear takeaway from the given statements is that all birds have feathers.