# RE5 | perplexity/sonar-pro | run 2

## Prompt

All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly. Does it logically follow that some roses fade quickly? Explain.

## Response

No. The conclusion **does not logically follow** from the premises as stated.[9](https://www.logicreasoninglab.com/en/logical-reasoning/questions/if-all-roses-are-flowers-and-some-flowers-fade-quickly-what-follows)

## Why not

- **All roses are flowers** only tells you roses are a subset of flowers.[9](https://www.logicreasoninglab.com/en/logical-reasoning/questions/if-all-roses-are-flowers-and-some-flowers-fade-quickly-what-follows)
- **Some flowers fade quickly** tells you at least one flower fades quickly, but it does not say that any of those flowers are roses.[9](https://www.logicreasoninglab.com/en/logical-reasoning/questions/if-all-roses-are-flowers-and-some-flowers-fade-quickly-what-follows)

## Counterexample

Imagine the fading flowers are **tulips**, and none of the roses fade quickly. Then both premises are true, but the conclusion “some roses fade quickly” is false, so the argument is invalid.[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/1f0lehu/teaching_self_logic_and_have_some_specific/)[2](https://stevemehta.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/logic-dictates-the-wrong-answer/)

## What would make it valid

If you had **some roses are flowers that fade quickly**, then the conclusion would follow. But from the given premises alone, it does not.[4](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1403166-all-roses-are-flowers-some-flowers-fade-quickly-therefore-some)  

Would you like me to show this with a simple Venn diagram?
