Q.In each of the following, determine whether the statement is true or false. If it is true, prove it. If it is false, give an example.
The key idea is to distinguish set membership () from subset () — they are different relations. Only statement (iii) is true; the rest are false, with clear counterexamples.
Let’s unpack each statement one by one. The core confusion here is between “is an element of” () and “is a subset of” (). An element is a member of a set; a subset is a set whose every element is also in another set. They are not interchangeable, and one does not imply the other.
(i) If and , then
False.
Here is an element of , and itself is an element of . But is not necessarily an element of — contains the set , not the individual elements of .
Counterexample:
Let and .
Then and , but (the only element of is the set , not the number 1).
A common mistake: thinking that if a set is an element of another set, then its elements are also elements of the larger set. That is not true — membership is not transitive.
(ii) If and , then
False.
is a subset of , meaning every element of is in . But contains as an element — it does not automatically contain subsets of .
Counterexample:
Let , , and .
Then and , but (the only element of is the set , not ).
Think of as a box that contains the box . is a smaller box inside , but that doesn't put directly into — only is in .
(iii) If and , then
True.
This is the transitivity of the subset relation. If every element of is in , and every element of is in , then every element of is in .
Proof:
Take any . Since , we have . Since , we have . Hence every element of is in , so .
The subset relation is transitive:
(iv) If and , then
False.
Just because is not a subset of , and is not a subset of , it does not mean cannot be a subset of . The two conditions are independent.
Counterexample:
Let , , .
- because .
- because .
- Yet because .
Non-subset is not transitive. The failure of one relation does not force the failure of another.
(v) If and , then
False.
means there is at least one element of that is not in . But the statement claims that any element of must be in — that contradicts the meaning of .
Counterexample:
Let , .
Then and (since ), but .
only guarantees that some element of is missing from , not that all are. So picking an arbitrary from gives no guarantee.
(vi) If and , then
True.
This is the contrapositive of the definition of subset. If every element of is in , then anything outside cannot be in .
Proof:
Assume and . If were in , then by , would be in — contradiction. Hence .
This is logically equivalent to:
- False,
- False,
- True,
- False,
- False,
- True.
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.