Set-relation independence: with 'All cars are cats' and 'All fans are cats', assess whether (i) All cars are fans or (ii) Some fans are cars necessarily follow in syllogistic logic

Given data

• Premise 1: All cars are cats (Cars ⊆ Cats).
• Premise 2: All fans are cats (Fans ⊆ Cats).
• Conclusions: (I) All cars are fans. (II) Some fans are cars.

Concept/Approach (why this method)

Two distinct subsets of the same superset need not relate to each other. Neither inclusion nor overlap between Cars and Fans is guaranteed.

Step-by-Step calculation (logical derivation)
1) From the premises we only know: Cars and Fans are both inside Cats.2) It is possible they are disjoint (no car is a fan) or overlapping; both models satisfy the premises.3) Hence we cannot assert 'All cars are fans' (I) or 'Some fans are cars' (II) with necessity.

Verification/Alternative

Venn: draw two separate circles (Cars, Fans) inside Cats with no overlap. Premises hold; both conclusions fail — so neither conclusion is logically necessary.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming relations between two subsets that share a superset.
• Reading 'All X are Cats' as 'All Cats are X' (converse error).

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.