Logical deductions with qualifiers: from 'All young scientists are open-minded' and 'No open-minded men are superstitious' determine which conclusions follow about scientists and young people regarding superstition

Given data

• Premise 1: All young scientists are open-minded.
• Premise 2: No open-minded men are superstitious.
• Conclusions: (I) No scientist is superstitious. (II) No young people are superstitious.

Concept/Approach (why this method)

Track qualifiers carefully ('young', 'scientists', 'men'). A universal claim about a narrower group cannot be generalized to a broader group without explicit linkage.

Step-by-Step calculation (logical derivation)
1) From Premise 1, Young-Scientists ⊆ Open-minded.2) From Premise 2, (Open-minded ∩ Men) ⊆ Not-superstitious.3) We can at best infer: Young-Scientists-who-are-Men ⊆ Not-superstitious.4) Conclusion I claims 'No scientist is superstitious' (covers all scientists, any age/sex), which is not supported.5) Conclusion II claims 'No young people are superstitious' (covers all young people, not just young scientists), also unsupported.

Verification/Alternative

Counterexample: a female young scientist could be open-minded (OK) but Premise 2 speaks only about open-minded men; thus nothing is said about her superstition status.

Common pitfalls

• Overgeneralizing from a subset (young scientists) to all scientists or all young people.
• Ignoring the gender restriction in Premise 2.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.