Statements: • Some doors are handles. • All handles are pins. • Some pins are threats. • All threats are clothes. Conclusions: I. Some clothes are pins. II. Some pins are doors. III. Some clothes are handles. IV. Some clothes are doors. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
Two universal statements embed two different “some” statements. We must see which intersections are guaranteed and which would require the same individuals to satisfy multiple unrelated “some” claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some Doors are Handles and All Handles ⊆ Pins ⇒ those Doors are Pins.
• Some Pins are Threats and All Threats ⊆ Clothes ⇒ those Pins are Clothes.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I follows directly from the Pins that are Threats: they are Clothes, so Clothes ∩ Pins ≠ ∅. Conclusion II follows from Doors that are Handles: since Handles ⊆ Pins, some Pins are Doors. By contrast, III and IV would require the very same Pins (which are Threats) to also be Handles or Doors; the premises do not force that coincidence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: From “Some Pins are Threats” and “All Threats are Clothes,” obtain Pins ∩ Clothes ≠ ∅.• II: From “Some Doors are Handles” and “All Handles are Pins,” obtain Pins ∩ Doors ≠ ∅.• III: Would require Threat-Pins to be Handles; not implied.• IV: Would additionally require those Clothes to be Doors; again not implied.

Verification / Alternative check:
Create a model where the set of handles-doors pins and the set of threat pins are disjoint. Then I and II remain true, while III and IV are false.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They add non-forced overlaps across distinct existential statements.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming all “some” witnesses are the same element.

Final Answer:
Only I and II follow.