Correct
Not quite — the correct answer is highlighted
Show answer & explanationHide answer
Answer: (B) Both conclusions I and II follows
Explanation
Statement I is a universal negative proposition of the form No A is D, which implies that the sets A and D have no elements in common. In syllogistic logic, E-type propositions are perfectly reversible, meaning that if no A is D, it is logically certain that no D is A. Therefore, Conclusion I follows directly from Statement I. Statement II is a universal affirmative proposition of the form All D are E, which indicates that the set D is a subset of set E. This relationship implies a partial overlap from the perspective of the predicate; if every member of D is a member of E, then there exists at least some member of E that is a member of D. Consequently, Conclusion II follows as a valid immediate inference from Statement II.