Abstract syllogism trap: 'All jungles are tigers' and 'Some tigers are horses' — evaluate whether any conclusion about horses and jungles is logically necessary

Given data

• Premise 1: Jungles ⊆ Tigers.
• Premise 2: Some Tigers are Horses.
• Conclusions:
  • I: Some Horses are Jungles.
  • II: No Horse is Jungle.

Concept/Approach (why this method)

Premise 2 tells us only that the Horses set intersects Tigers somewhere; it does not say that it intersects the particular subset 'Jungles'. Either overlap or disjointness with 'Jungles' is possible.

Step-by-Step calculation / logic
1) If the Horses subset inside Tigers coincides with Jungles, I could be true; if it sits outside Jungles, I is false.2) Because both I and its negation are possible under the premises, neither I nor II is a necessary conclusion.

Verification/Alternative

Two models consistent with premises: (A) Horses ∩ Jungles ≠ ∅ (I true); (B) Horses ∩ Jungles = ∅ (II true). Since truth varies by model, neither follows.

Common pitfalls

• Forcing a relationship between two subsets of the same superset without information.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.