Logical reasoning (premises-to-conclusion): All the tulips in Zoe's garden are white; all the pansies in Zoe's garden are yellow; determine whether the concluding statement—"All the flowers in Zoe's garden are either white or yellow"—must be true based only on the first two premises, without assuming anything about other flower types.

Given data

• Premise 1: All tulips in Zoe's garden are white.
• Premise 2: All pansies in Zoe's garden are yellow.
• Candidate conclusion: All flowers in Zoe's garden are either white or yellow.

Concept / Approach
We are testing whether the conclusion is logically entailed by the premises (i.e., must be true if the premises are true), not whether it could happen to be true in Zoe's actual garden.Premises mention only two categories (tulips, pansies) and their colors; they say nothing about any other flowers that might also be in the garden.

Step-by-step reasoning
Step 1: From Premise 1, every tulip is white. This restricts tulips to the set {white}.Step 2: From Premise 2, every pansy is yellow. This restricts pansies to the set {yellow}.Step 3: The premises do not claim that tulips and pansies are the only flowers in the garden; other kinds (e.g., roses, lilies) may exist.Step 4: If other flower types exist, they could be red, pink, purple, etc. Therefore, it does not logically follow that all flowers are either white or yellow.Step 5: Because the existence and colors of other flower types are unspecified, the conclusion is not guaranteed.

Verification / Alternative view
Construct a countermodel: Suppose Zoe also grows red roses. Premises 1 and 2 remain true, but then not all flowers are white or yellow. Hence the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming that only tulips and pansies exist because they were the only types mentioned.
• Confusing "could be true" with "must be true." Logical entailment requires necessity, not possibility.

Final Answer
Cannot be determined from the given premises—the conclusion is not logically entailed.