Statement: Cactus plants are fleshy but need least water. Conclusions: I. All fleshy plants are cactus. II. Cactus plants need least water. Select the correct option.

Introduction / Context:
Single-statement syllogism questions test recognition of what is exactly stated versus what would be an illicit generalization beyond the given wording.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Given: “Cactus plants are fleshy but need least water.”
• Interpretation: This attributes two properties to cactus: being fleshy and needing very little water.

Concept / Approach:
From “X are Y,” we may only infer that members of X enjoy property Y. We cannot flip it to “All Y are X” unless explicitly stated. When the second clause asserts a property of cactus (needing least water), that conclusion may be repeated verbatim.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion II restates a property directly asserted about cactus; therefore it follows.2) Conclusion I overgeneralizes from “cactus are fleshy” to “all fleshy plants are cactus,” which is a converse fallacy and is not entailed.

Verification / Alternative check:
Counterexample to I: Many fleshy plants (e.g., certain succulents) are not cactus. The statement gives no exclusivity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” includes the invalid converse. “Only I” is the converse error. “Neither” ignores the explicit truth of II. “Data inadequate” is incorrect because the statement is sufficient to affirm II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “some X have Y” or “all X have Y” with “only X have Y.” The latter is much stronger and is not given.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.