Statements: Some blades are hammers. Some hammers are knives. Some knives are axes.

Conclusions:

1. Some axes are hammers.
2. Some knives are blades.
3. Some axes are blades.

Since each combination of premises shall contain two particular premises, no definite conclusion can be drawn. However, II and III are statements involving the extreme terms of the last two premises and form a complementary pair. Thus, either II or III follows.

All trains are buses. No room is bus.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No train is room'. Thus, III follows.

All boats are rooms. No room is bus.

As discussed above, it follows that 'No boat is bus'.

II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds. All trains are buses. No boat is bus.

Again, it follows that 'No train is boat'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some pens are books. All schools are books.

Since the middle term 'books' is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.

Some colleges are schools. All schools are books.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term.

So, it follows that 'Some colleges are books'. Thus, III follows.

Some pens are books. Some colleges are books.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Hence, only III follows.

Some saints are balls. All balls are bats.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some saints are bats'. Thus, II follows. Some tigers are balls. All balls are bats.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some tigers are bats'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some hills are rivers. Some rivers are deserts.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.

Some rivers are deserts. All deserts are roads.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and shouldn't contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some rivers are roads'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some hills are rivers. Some rivers are roads.

Again, since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.

II is the converse of first premise and so it holds.

Some boxes are hammers. Some hammers are beads.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Some hammers are beads. All beads are rings.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some hammers are rings'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some boxes are hammers. Some hammers are rings.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

I is the converse of the second premise, II is the converse of the third premise and III is the converse of the first premise and as such, all three of them follow.

All cars are bottles. All bottles are windows.

Since both the premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal and shouldn't contain the middle term, So, it follows that 'All cars are windows'. Thus, I follows.

Also, III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

All dolls are windows. All bottles are windows.

Since the middle term 'windows' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

All cars are windows. All bottles are windows.

Again, the middle term 'windows' is not distributed even once in the premises.

So, no definite conclusion follows.

All tigers are lions. No cow is lion.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and shouldn't contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No tiger is cow'.

Some camels are cows. No cow is lion.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not lions'. Some camels are cows. No tiger is cow.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not tigers'.

All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees.

Since the middle term 'toys' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.