Syllogism – Universal plus particular with careful intersection: Statements: (a) All books are novels. (b) Some novels are poems. Conclusions: (I) Some books are poems. (II) Some poems are novels. Select the option that necessarily follows.

Introduction / Context:
This question probes whether you can distinguish a guaranteed overlap from an optional one. We are given a universal inclusion and a particular about the superset; we must not assume that the subset participates in the particular overlap unless stated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• All Books are Novels (B ⊆ N).
• Some Novels are Poems (∃ N ∩ P).

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion (II), 'Some poems are novels', is simply a symmetric restatement of the given particular (there exists an element that is both P and N). Conclusion (I), 'Some books are poems', would require that the specific novels that are poems include at least one book. That is not compelled by the premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
From 'Some N are P', pick an element x with x ∈ N ∩ P. Then automatically 'Some P are N' holds, establishing (II).However, unless we know that x ∈ B as well, we cannot assert 'Some B are P'. The promise 'All B are N' does not guarantee that the poem-novel x is a Book.

Verification / Alternative check:
Countermodel for (I): Let B be a proper subset of N, and choose the P-overlap entirely from N \ B (novels that are not books). The premises remain true, (II) remains true, but (I) fails. Hence only (II) follows necessarily.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Both follow / Only (I) follows: contradicted by the countermodel.
• Neither follows: incorrect because (II) is guaranteed.

Common Pitfalls:
Automatically tying the particular overlap of a superset (N) to its subset (B). This is a frequent logic error in syllogism questions.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion (II) follows.