Statements: • No man is a donkey. • Ajay is a man. Conclusions: I. Ajay is not a donkey. II. All men are not Ajay. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
Universal negatives like “No A are B” block any overlap between the two sets. When a specific individual belongs to one set, the negative immediately transfers to that individual. Ambiguous linguistic forms like “All men are not Ajay” must be handled cautiously in formal logic.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No Man is a Donkey (Man ∩ Donkey = ∅).
• Ajay ∈ Man.

Concept / Approach:
If a person (Ajay) is in the set of Men, and Men share no members with Donkeys, then Ajay cannot be a Donkey. The second conclusion’s natural-language phrasing is not a standard syllogistic form and typically reads as either a trivial identity statement (“not all men are Ajay”) or an ill-formed universal about identity, neither of which follows from the premises in the way syllogism options intend.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From Ajay ∈ Man and Man ∩ Donkey = ∅, conclude Ajay ∉ Donkey ⇒ Conclusion I is true.2) Conclusion II asserts something about all men and the identity “Ajay.” The premises do not discuss identity partitions; hence II is not entailed.

Verification / Alternative check:
Model: Men = {Ajay, M2}, Donkeys = {D1}. Disjointness holds; Ajay is not a donkey (I true). There is no basis to claim a universal sentence about “All men are not Ajay” as a logical consequence— it is outside syllogistic scope.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option including II attributes content beyond the premises. “Neither” ignores the direct consequence that Ajay is not a donkey.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading awkward English phrasing as a valid categorical proposition. Stick to set relations established by the premises.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion I follows.