Statements: No man is sky. No sky is road. Some men are roads.

Conclusions:

1. No road is man.
2. No road is sky.
3. Some skies are men.
4. All roads are men.

I is the converse of the third premise and so it holds.

No paper is pen. No pen is pencil.

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

All erasers are papers. No paper is pen.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No eraser is pen'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Hence, only I and III follow.

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

All myths are fictions. No fiction is novel.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No myth is novel'. Thus, I follows.

No fiction is novel. All novels are stories.

Since the middle term 'novels' is distributed twice in the premises, the conclusion must be particular. Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

So, it follows that 'Some stories are not fictions'.

Hence, only I and III follow.

All rods are bricks. Some bricks are ropes.

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

Some bricks are ropes. All ropes are doors.

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

All rods are bricks. Some bricks are doors.

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

However, I and III involve the extreme terms. But, since they are not contradictory, they do not form a complementary pair.

Hence, only II follows.

III is the converse of the third premise and so it holds.

Some pearls are stones. Some stones are diamonds.

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

Some stones are diamonds. No diamond is a gem.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some stones are not gems'.

However, I and IV involve the extreme terms of the three premises and form a complementary pair, Thus, either I or IV follows.

All colleges are schools. No house is school.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No college is house'. Thus, IV follows.

All colleges are schools. All schools are teachers.

Clearly, it follows that 'All colleges are teachers'. Thus, II follows.

No house is school. All schools are teachers.

Since the middle term 'schools' is distributed twice, the conclusion must be particular.

Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. So, it follows that 'Some teachers are not houses'.

No toy is building. All buildings are windows.

Since the middle term 'buildings' is distributed twice and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term.

So, it follows that 'Some windows are not toys'.

Some tigers are toys. No toy is building.

Since one premise is particular and the other premise is negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some tigers are not buildings'.

Some papers are cats. All cats are bats.

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

All cats are bats. No bat is horse.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No cat is horse'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some papers are bats. No bat is horse.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some papers are not horses'.

Since each combination of premises shall contain two particular premises, no definite conclusion can be drawn. However, I and IV involve the extreme terms of the second and third premises and form a complementary pair. Thus, either I or IV follows.

No table is fruit. No fruit is window.

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

No fruit is window. All windows are chairs.

Since the middle term 'windows' is distributed twice and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be particular negative. So, it follows that 'Some chairs are not fruits'.

III is the converse of the first premise and II is the converse of the second premise.

So, both of them hold.

All fruits are books. All books are buses.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All fruits are buses'. Thus, IV follows.

All jungles are buses. All books are buses.

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

All fruits are buses. All books are buses.

As discussed above, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

All jungles are buses. All fruits are buses.

Again, no definite conclusion follows.