If Some tees are moos and all moos are yees are all tees yees? It is an IQ test question ... I said Yes but I am not 100% sure if I got it right.
B and C have the property X in common, and are thus equal in terms of the property X. 'All B are C' can be thought of as 'B=C', which means that you have:
Some A are B. Therefore, All A are B.
As you can see it is a contradiction.
'Some' ≠ 'All'
If we replace A with 'candies in the bag' and B with 'Skittles [sour]', C with 'sour' we get:
Some candies in the bag are Skittles. All Skittles [sour] are sour. Therefore all candies in the bag are sour.
It might be true that all candies in the bag happened to be sour, but we cannot deduce that all candies in the bag are (in fact) sour.
You are given:
Some tees are moos
All moos are yees
Now, the second sentence is telling us that moos are also yees; that is if something is a moo, then it is also a yee. This means you can substitute moo by yee in the first sentence.
And when you do that, you get the following sentence:
Some tees are yees
So the answer is no, not all tees are yees - only some are!
Could go either way depending on set order, wording, or if any of the A,B,or C is an adjective, noun or verb. Ex. 1 "Some animals are cats, all cats are mortal," then true, "all animals are mortal." Assuming you believe all living things die. Ex.2 "Some animals are cats, all cats are mammals," then, " all animals are mammals," is a false statement.
BTW,in rebuttal to a previous post, not all lions are yellow, some are albinos. I'm not trying to be cute, just showing how important the wording is when it comes to the "if some As are Bs, all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs" question.