Syllogism with necessary and sufficient conditions Statements: • A man must be wise to be a good wrangler. • Good wranglers are talkative and boring. Conclusions to evaluate: I. All wise persons are boring. II. All wise persons are good wranglers.

Introduction / Context:
This classic syllogism tests understanding of necessary conditions. The first statement says wisdom is necessary for being a good wrangler. The second says all good wranglers are talkative and boring. We must be careful not to reverse the direction of implication.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• If someone is a good wrangler, then he must be wise.
• All good wranglers are talkative and boring.
• Nothing is stated about all wise people in general.

Concept / Approach:
Translate to conditional form: Good wrangler → Wise; Good wrangler → Boring. From this we cannot infer Wise → Good wrangler or Wise → Boring. Necessary is not the same as sufficient. Avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent or illicit conversion of a subset relation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Create a counterexample: many wise people are not wranglers at all, and therefore the property boring from the second statement need not apply to them. The original statements remain true while both conclusions fail, proving neither follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: each commits a direction error.
• Either or Both: neither conclusion is compelled by the given conditionals.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions; reversing arrows in conditional logic.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows