Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: All poets are writers.Some writers are critics. No critic is a fool. Conclusions: I. Some poets are critics. II. Some writers are not fools.

Correct — B.
Rule: a conclusion follows only if it is true in every diagram the statements allow.

Conclusion II: some writers are critics, and no critic is a fool. Those writers cannot be fools, so some writers are not fools. It follows.

Conclusion I: the critics among the writers may all lie outside the poets, so some poets are critics is possible, not certain → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only I follows — Some poets are critics is only possible. The writer-critics can sit wholly outside the poets circle and every statement still holds.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — Conclusion II holds, but conclusion I is only a possibility, so 'both' fails.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — Conclusion II is certain: the writers who are critics are, by the third statement, not fools.

Draw the statements as circles. Poets sit wholly inside writers. Critics overlap writers somewhere, and fools share nothing with critics.

A conclusion follows only if no drawing can break it. The writer-critic overlap always exists and always lies outside fools, which fixes conclusion II. Nothing forces that overlap to touch the poets, so conclusion I can be drawn false.

Key facts

• 'All A are B' puts A wholly inside B.
• 'Some B are C' with 'No C is D' gives 'Some B are not D'.
• 'All A are B' with 'Some B are C' does not give 'Some A are C'.

Common traps

• Reading 'some writers are critics' as 'some poets are critics' because poets are writers
• Rejecting conclusion II because fools are never linked to writers directly

No directly related past PYQ was found.