Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: Some animals are carnivores. Some carnivores are wild. Conclusions: I. Some animals are wild. II. All wild are animals.

Correct — D.
Rule: two 'some' statements give no definite conclusion.

Some animals are carnivores. Some carnivores are wild.
The wild carnivores need not be the ones that are animals, so I is only possible, not certain.

II is an all claim, and no premise says every wild thing is an animal, so II fails too.

Neither follows → option (d).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only I follows — Some animals are wild is possible, not certain. The carnivores that are animals and the carnivores that are wild can be different ones.
• (b)
  Only II follows — All wild are animals is an 'all' claim with only 'some' premises behind it. The statements do not even guarantee that some wild are animals.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Both needs I and II to be certain, and neither is. Two 'some' links through carnivores fix nothing between animals and wild.

A definite conclusion needs the middle term, here carnivores, to be covered in full by at least one premise, as in 'All carnivores are wild'. 'Some animals are carnivores' and 'Some carnivores are wild' each cover only part of it.

Draw it: a carnivores circle overlapping animals on one side and wild on the other, with no overlap between animals and wild. That drawing fits both statements, so neither conclusion is forced.

Key facts

• Some + some gives no definite conclusion.
• If either premise is a 'some' statement, no 'all' conclusion can follow.
• Take the premises as given, not real-world knowledge about wild animals.

Common traps

• Accepting I because animals and wild both touch carnivores
• Using real-world knowledge that wild creatures are animals to accept II

No directly related past PYQ was found.