In this syllogism style reasoning question, treat the following statements as true and decide which of the given conclusions must follow. Statements: No chair is a table. All chairs are benches. Some chairs are boxes. Conclusions: I. No table is a box. II. Some benches are boxes.

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic syllogism question involving three sets: chairs, tables, benches, and boxes. You are given categorical statements about how these sets overlap or do not overlap, and you must decide which conclusions follow beyond doubt. The challenge is to visualize or mentally model the relationships and distinguish certain conclusions from those that are merely possible or not supported at all.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement 1: No chair is a table. So the sets chairs and tables do not intersect.
• Statement 2: All chairs are benches. The set of chairs is completely inside the set of benches.
• Statement 3: Some chairs are boxes. At least one object is both a chair and a box.
• Conclusion I: No table is a box.
• Conclusion II: Some benches are boxes.
• All statements are to be treated as logically true, irrespective of real furniture.

Concept / Approach:
Syllogism questions are best handled either by drawing simple Venn diagrams or by thinking in terms of subsets and intersections. A conclusion must hold in every possible diagram that satisfies the statements. If you can construct even one diagram in which a conclusion fails while all statements remain true, that conclusion does not follow. Also, when we know that all elements of one set are contained in another, any overlap that the smaller set has with a third set will be inherited by the larger set.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From Statement 2, all chairs are benches. So if something is a chair, it is definitely a bench. Step 2: From Statement 3, some chairs are boxes. That means there is at least one object that is both a chair and a box. Step 3: Combine Step 1 and Step 2: the object that is both a chair and a box must also be a bench, because every chair is a bench. Therefore, at least one bench is also a box. Step 4: This chain directly supports Conclusion II: some benches are boxes is definitely true. Step 5: Now examine Conclusion I: no table is a box. From the premises, we only know that no chair is a table, and some chairs are boxes. This allows us to say that those particular boxes that are chairs are not tables, but it tells us nothing about other boxes that might not be chairs. It is entirely possible that some non-chair boxes are tables. Step 6: Construct a counterexample for Conclusion I. Imagine one object that is a chair, a bench, and a box, but not a table (to satisfy the given statements). Also imagine a different object that is both a table and a box. This arrangement satisfies all the statements:

• No chair is a table: the chair object is not a table.
• All chairs are benches: the chair object is also a bench.
• Some chairs are boxes: the chair object is also a box.

However, there is also a table that is a box, which makes Conclusion I false.

Verification / Alternative check:
The reasoning confirms that Conclusion II must always hold, because any overlap between chairs and boxes automatically becomes an overlap between benches and boxes due to the subset relationship. On the other hand, the relationship between tables and boxes is not constrained by the premises except that the chairs that are boxes cannot be tables. There may still be other boxes that are tables, so we cannot assert “no table is a box” as a universal truth.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a: “Only conclusion I follows” is incorrect because Conclusion I does not follow at all, while Conclusion II does. Option c: “Either conclusion I or conclusion II follows” is wrong because there is no such either or condition; Conclusion II always follows and Conclusion I does not. Option d: “Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows” fails because we have shown that Conclusion II definitely follows. Option e: “Both conclusion I and conclusion II follow” is false because Conclusion I is not logically forced.

Common Pitfalls:
One typical mistake is to confuse “some chairs are boxes” with “all boxes are chairs” or “all boxes are benches”, which are not given. Another common error is overgeneralizing from the fact that some boxes are chairs (and therefore not tables) to claim that no box can be a table. Always remember that the word “some” in logic means “at least one” and does not by itself restrict the rest of the set. Drawing quick sketches of circles often prevents these overgeneralizations.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows.