Consider the statements:\nI. All artists are whimsical.\nII. Some artists are drug addicts.\nIII. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts.\n\nWhich of the following conclusions can be drawn?

Introduction / Context:
We have three categorical statements. Two of them relate the sets Artists, Whimsical, and Drug-Addicts. The third introduces Frustrated people, but without explicit linkage to Artists. We need the conclusion that is logically compelled.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Artists ⊆ Whimsical (every artist is whimsical).
• II: Some Artists ⊆ Drug-Addicts (there exists at least one artist who is a drug addict).
• III: Frustrated ⇒ Prone to become drug addicts (tendency; not a biconditional; does not state all drug addicts are frustrated).

Concept / Approach:
From I and II, take the “some artists” who are drug addicts. Since all artists are whimsical, those same individuals are whimsical. Therefore, at least some drug addicts (specifically, those artists) are whimsical.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Venn diagram: Put Artists entirely inside Whimsical. Shade some overlap between Artists and Drug-Addicts. The overlap sits inside Whimsical, confirming the conclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Forcing conclusions that require reversing implications; reading “prone to become” as “are.”

Final Answer:
Some drug addicts are whimsical.