Artists are generally whimsical. Some of these artists are frustrated. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. Based on these statements, which of the following conclusions is logically correct?

Introduction / Context:
This is a logical reasoning question about artists, frustration and the risk of drug addiction. You are given three linked statements and must decide which conclusion is logically supported. Such questions test your ability to connect premises carefully without overgeneralising beyond what is actually stated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement 1: Artists are generally whimsical. (Most or almost all artists are whimsical in nature.)

• Statement 2: Some of these artists are frustrated. (There exists at least a subset of artists who are frustrated.)

• Statement 3: Frustrated people are prone to be drug addicts. (Frustration increases the tendency toward drug addiction, but does not guarantee it.)

• We interpret "prone to" as increased risk or tendency, not as a certainty that they are drug addicts.

Concept / Approach:
We must be careful about the difference between "may be", "are", "all" and "some". The statements indicate tendencies and existence of certain groups, not that every member of a group definitely has a specific property. Therefore, any conclusion that turns a tendency into a universal fact is suspect.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From Statement 2, we know that there exists at least one artist who is frustrated. Step 2: From Statement 3, frustrated people are prone to be drug addicts. This implies that frustrated artists have a higher chance of becoming drug addicts than non frustrated people. Step 3: Combining Steps 1 and 2, we can say that some artists belong to a group that is prone to drug addiction. Thus, it is logically valid to say that some artists may be drug addicts. Step 4: Check Option A: "All frustrated people are drug addicts." The premise only says they are prone to be drug addicts, not that every frustrated person definitely becomes one. So Option A is too strong and not supported. Step 5: Check Option B: "Frustrated people are whimsical." We know that some artists are frustrated and artists are generally whimsical, but that does not mean all frustrated people, including those who are not artists, are whimsical. So Option B is not logically guaranteed. Step 6: Check Option C: "All drug addicts are artists." The premises only show that some artists are frustrated and that frustrated people are prone to addiction; they say nothing about drug addicts outside the group of artists. So Option C overgeneralises. Step 7: Option D: "Some artists may be drug addicts." This matches our reasoning in Step 3 and correctly uses the cautious phrase "may be", reflecting a possibility rather than a certainty.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a simple example. Suppose there are 100 artists, of whom 20 are frustrated, and among those 20, some become drug addicts due to their frustration. Then clearly some artists are drug addicts, satisfying Option D. However, it may still be false that all frustrated people are addicts (Option A), that all drug addicts are artists (Option C), or that every frustrated person in the world is whimsical (Option B). Thus only Option D is forced by the premises.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A, B and C all express universal statements ("all frustrated people", "all drug addicts") that go far beyond what is stated. The premises provide evidence of a subset relationship and risk, not universal equivalence. Therefore, these options misinterpret the logical strength of the given information.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often turn probabilistic or tendency based language like "prone to" into absolute certainty, which leads to invalid universal conclusions. Another common mistake is assuming that if some members of one group belong to another, then every member of one group must belong to the other. Always pay close attention to words like "some", "all", "generally" and "prone to".

Final Answer:
The only conclusion that is logically supported is that some artists may be drug addicts.