Syllogism — Philosophers and gender; Socrates case: Statements: • All philosophers are men. • Socrates was a philosopher. Conclusions to test: I. Socrates was a man. II. Women cannot become philosophers. Choose which conclusion(s) necessarily follow(s).

Introduction / Context:
This syllogism examines what necessarily follows from a universal statement and a particular instance, avoiding any modal (“can/cannot become”) extrapolations unless they are strictly entailed.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise 1: All philosophers are men (Philosopher ⊆ Men).
• Premise 2: Socrates was a philosopher.
• We must test the two conclusions for necessity, not plausibility.

Concept / Approach:
Universal inclusion plus instance substitution. From “All P are M” and “Socrates is P,” we infer “Socrates is M.” The second conclusion introduces a modal impossibility claim about women, which is not warranted by the set inclusion alone.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From Premise 1, every philosopher is a man.2) From Premise 2, Socrates was a philosopher; substituting into step 1 yields Socrates was a man.3) Conclusion I is therefore necessary.4) Conclusion II (“Women cannot become philosophers”) goes beyond the given set inclusion; the premises do not speak about possibilities for women.

Verification / Alternative check:
Models can satisfy the premises while allowing or disallowing female philosophers without contradiction; hence II is not forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II,” “Both,” and “Neither” each conflict with the necessary inference in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading social or historical context into logical form.

Final Answer:
Only I is valid.