Logical inference with quantifiers — from 'All the organised persons find time for rest; Sunita, despite a very busy schedule, finds time for rest', assess whether it necessarily follows that Sunita is organised or that she is industrious

Given data

• Premise 1: All organised persons ⇒ find time for rest.
• Premise 2: Sunita (busy schedule) ⇒ finds time for rest.
• Conclusions:
  • I: Sunita is an organised person.
  • II: Sunita is an industrious person.

Concept/Approach

Beware of the converse error: from 'All A are B' and 'X is B', you cannot conclude 'X is A'. Also, trait inference ('industrious') is not guaranteed merely from 'busy schedule' unless explicitly linked.

Step-by-step logic
1) From 'organised ⇒ finds rest' and 'Sunita finds rest', concluding 'Sunita ⇒ organised' is converse fallacy ⇒ I does not follow.2) 'Industrious' is not stated; a busy schedule could arise from many causes (inefficiency, obligations). No necessity ⇒ II does not follow.

Verification/Alternative

Counterexample: A non-organised person could still find rest accidentally or through help; therefore I fails logically. No explicit link supports II.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming the converse of a universal conditional.
• Reading personality traits into neutral descriptors without support.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.