In this logical reasoning problem, two statements about drinks, food, and eatables are given. You must treat the statements as true and decide which of the two conclusions logically follows. Statement 1: All drinks are food. Statement 2: No eatables are drinks. Conclusion I: Some food are eatables. Conclusion II: Some eatables are food.

Introduction / Context:
This is a typical syllogism question involving three categories: drinks, food, and eatables. You are given two categorical statements that describe how these sets are related. The task is to test each conclusion against all possible Venn diagrams that satisfy the statements and identify which conclusions must be true. The key is to remember that we cannot assume any relationship that is not explicitly forced by the statements.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement 1: All drinks are food, which means the set of drinks lies entirely inside the set of food.
- Statement 2: No eatables are drinks, which means the sets eatables and drinks are completely disjoint.
- Conclusion I: Some food are eatables, claiming there is overlap between food and eatables.
- Conclusion II: Some eatables are food, which is essentially the same overlap stated from the eatables side.

Concept / Approach:
In set notation, "All drinks are food" is represented as D ⊆ F, and "No eatables are drinks" is E ∩ D = empty set. The conclusions both assert that E ∩ F is non empty. To see whether this must be true, we check if the given statements force any overlap between eatables and food. If we can construct at least one valid diagram where eatables and food do not overlap, then the conclusions are not logically guaranteed to follow.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Draw a large circle for food, labeled F. Step 2: Draw a smaller circle for drinks, labeled D, completely inside the food circle to represent D ⊆ F. Step 3: Now add the set eatables, labeled E, such that it has no overlap with drinks, because Statement 2 says E ∩ D = empty set. Step 4: Nothing in the statements forces E to overlap with F. E could be drawn completely outside F, or it could partly overlap F, and both possibilities would satisfy the statements. Step 5: Since there is at least one valid configuration where E and F do not intersect at all, the statement "Some food are eatables" in Conclusion I is not necessarily true. Step 6: By the same reasoning, "Some eatables are food" in Conclusion II is also not guaranteed because the overlap between E and F is not forced by the given information.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, construct two diagrams. In Diagram A, let E partially overlap F and avoid D. In this case both conclusions are true. In Diagram B, place E entirely outside of F and still avoid D. Here both conclusions are false, but both diagrams satisfy the original two statements. Because the conclusions are not true in every valid diagram, they do not logically follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A and B each assume that one of the conclusions is forced by the statements, but as shown, we can create a diagram where there is no overlap between food and eatables, which makes both conclusions false in that scenario. Option C, which says both follow, is even stronger and therefore cannot be correct. Option E suggests that exactly one of the two must follow, but we have seen that in some configurations neither follows, so this is also incorrect.

Common Pitfalls:
A common misconception is to assume that "eatables" is simply another word for "food" and to merge the sets in your mind. In logical reasoning, however, each term represents a separate set unless explicitly equated by a statement. You must not import real world meanings that are not backed by the given statements. Always rely purely on the logical structure and the constraints they impose on the Venn diagram.

Final Answer:
The correct option is Neither I nor II follows, because nothing in the statements forces any overlap between food and eatables, so both conclusions are not logically guaranteed.