Statements:\nI. Leaders are human beings.\nII. All human beings need rest.\n\nConclusions:\nI. All human beings are not leaders.\nII. Leaders need rest.\n\nWhich conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
This is a standard categorical syllogism. We are told that the set of leaders is a subset of the set of human beings, and that every human being needs rest. We must test two candidate conclusions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise 1: Leaders ⊆ Humans.
• Premise 2: Humans ⊆ Rest-needing-beings (i.e., all humans need rest).

Concept / Approach:
From subset chaining: if Leaders ⊆ Humans and all Humans need rest, then all Leaders need rest. However, “All humans are not leaders” (i.e., not every human is a leader) cannot be inferred from “Leaders are humans” because it could still be possible (logically) that all humans happen to be leaders.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a model: Suppose the set of humans equals the set of leaders. Both premises remain true. But Conclusion I would be false in that model, hence I does not follow necessarily.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “Some A are B” or “All A are B” with its converse; assuming that a proper subset relation was stated when only subset inclusion was given.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion II follows.