Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only III follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This problem contrasts conclusions that require a specific intersection (not guaranteed) with a conclusion that follows from pushing an existential through a universal inclusion. The key is to see which sets are forced to overlap by the premises.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:From “Some rooms are halls” and “All halls are leaves,” the same witness element is both a room and a leaf, which guarantees “Some leaves are rooms.” However, nothing forces desks to be among those rooms that are halls, so claims about leaves∩desks or halls∩desks are not necessary.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: “Some leaves are desks” would require an element that is both Desk and Hall (or otherwise a Desk that becomes a Leaf), but the premises provide no link from Desks to Halls or Leaves; not necessary.II: “Some halls are desks” similarly needs Halls ∩ Desks ≠ ∅; the premises do not force this.III: Let r be such that r ∈ Rooms ∩ Halls. Since Halls ⊆ Leaves, r ∈ Leaves. Therefore r ∈ Rooms ∩ Leaves, proving III.Verification / Alternative check:In a Venn diagram, place a dot in Rooms ∩ Halls (which lies within Leaves). No dots are needed in Desks anywhere. The premises hold and only III is forced.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option including I or II assumes extra overlap not stated.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming that because Desks are Rooms, and some Rooms are Halls, therefore some Desks are Halls; this is a classic error (illicit conversion of “some”).
Final Answer:Only III follows.
Discussion & Comments