Syllogism – Conclusions about an unrelated term: Statements: Some buildings are benches. Some sofas are benches. Some benches are sofas. Conclusions: I) Some tables are sofas. II) No table is a sofa. Choose the necessarily true option.

Introduction / Context:
This question checks whether you can resist drawing conclusions about a term that never appears in the premises. 'Tables' are not mentioned in any premise, so nothing can be said about them with logical necessity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some Buildings are Benches.
• Some Sofas are Benches.
• Some Benches are Sofas.
• No premise mentions Tables.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusions about an unseen term (Tables) require explicit premises linking that term to the existing network of sets. Without such linkage, both 'Some tables are sofas' and 'No table is a sofa' can be true or false depending on how Tables are placed in a model.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Place Tables to overlap Sofas: then Conclusion I becomes true and Conclusion II false.Place Tables disjoint from Sofas: then Conclusion II becomes true and Conclusion I false.Because we can build valid models for either possibility with all premises satisfied, neither conclusion is forced.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct two models with identical relationships among Buildings, Benches, and Sofas (as given), but vary only the positioning of Tables. You will find both conclusions can flip while premises remain true, proving that neither is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I, Only II, Both, or Either: each asserts information about Tables not guaranteed by the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the test will always involve only the named sets and that any introduced set has an implied relation. In syllogisms, unstated relations must not be invented.

Final Answer:
Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.