Correct
Not quite — the correct answer is highlighted
Show answer & explanationHide answer
Answer: (A) Only conclusions I and III follow
Explanation
The statements can be represented using set notation where M represents metals, G represents gold, J represents jewellery, and O represents ornaments. The statements establish the relationships J ⊆ G and G ⊆ O. By the transitive property of inclusion, if every element of jewellery is in the set of gold, and every element of gold is in the set of ornaments, then every element of jewellery is necessarily in the set of ornaments (J ⊆ O). This confirms that all jewellery are ornaments, making Conclusion III logically follow.
Furthermore, if all jewellery are ornaments, then there must be an intersection between the set of ornaments and the set of jewellery such that at least some ornaments are jewellery. This validates Conclusion I. However, while the statements M ⊆ G and J ⊆ G establish that both metals and jewellery are contained within the set of gold, they do not provide any information regarding the relationship between metals and jewellery. There is no requirement for these two subsets to overlap. Therefore, Conclusion II does not logically follow from the given premises. Based on this logical deduction, only conclusions I and III are valid.