Statements: a) All children are students. b) All students are players. Conclusions: I. All cricketers are students. II. All children are players. Select the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
This is the same transitivity pattern as similar items: two universal affirmatives chained to test whether a third inclusion necessarily holds.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Children ⊆ Students.
• Students ⊆ Players.

Concept / Approach:
Transitivity: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C. Any conclusion about unrelated classes (e.g., Cricketers) is not entailed unless connected by premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Chain: Children ⊆ Players ⇒ all children are players (Conclusion II true).2) “All cricketers are students” is unsupported; cricketers may or may not be students.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a countermodel where Cricketers are non-students while all children are students and students are players. Premises hold; Conclusion I fails.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options asserting I or both are stronger than what premises license.

Common Pitfalls:
Importing real-world knowledge (e.g., “students often play cricket”), which is irrelevant to formal entailment.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows.