Statements: • All men are aggressive. • All children are aggressive. Conclusions: I. Men are children. II. Children are men. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
In categorical syllogisms, two different groups can both be subsets of a larger group without implying any relationship between the two smaller groups. This problem checks whether learners can resist the temptation to infer an unwarranted link between “men” and “children” merely because both are included in the larger set “aggressive.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise 1: All men are aggressive (Men ⊆ Aggressive).
• Premise 2: All children are aggressive (Children ⊆ Aggressive).
• No statement connects Men directly to Children.

Concept / Approach:
From A ⊆ C and B ⊆ C, we cannot infer A ⊆ B or B ⊆ A without additional premises. Set-inclusion chains only travel along stated links. Any conclusion that declares “Men are Children” or “Children are Men” would require an explicit premise relating those two sets, which we do not have.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Translate: Men ⊆ Aggressive, Children ⊆ Aggressive.2) There is no premise of the form Men ⊆ Children or Children ⊆ Men.3) Therefore, both proposed conclusions (I and II) overreach beyond the information given and are not logically necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct Model A: Aggressive = {m1, m2, c1}, Men = {m1, m2}, Children = {c1}. Both premises hold; neither Men ⊆ Children nor Children ⊆ Men is true. A different Model B could make Men and Children disjoint or overlapping—either way, no subset relation is forced by the premises. Hence neither conclusion necessarily follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I” or “Only II”: each asserts a subset link that is not given.
• “Both”: doubles the same error.
• “Data inadequate”: classical syllogism questions are evaluated for logical entailment; here the data are adequate to decide that neither conclusion is entailed.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that sharing a superset creates an inclusion between the subsets. Also, reading real-world connotations into “men” and “children” distracts from pure set logic.

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.