Statements: • All papers are clips. • Some chips are boards. • Some boards are lanes. • All lanes are roads. Conclusions: I. Some roads are boards. II. Some lanes are chips. III. Some boards are papers. IV. Some roads are chips. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
A universal inclusion takes “Some boards are lanes” directly to roads. Other proposed overlaps need identities across different “some” statements or links to Papers/Clips that are not provided.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ∃b_l ∈ Boards ∩ Lanes.
• Lanes ⊆ Roads.
• ∃c_b ∈ Chips ∩ Boards (may be different from b_l).
• Papers ⊆ Clips (no connection to Boards given).

Concept / Approach:
From b_l and Lanes ⊆ Roads, b_l ∈ Roads ∩ Boards, hence I is guaranteed. II and IV would require that the same board is both a lane and a chip; not forced. III would require an overlap between Boards and Papers; not given.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Directly from pushing b_l through Lanes ⊆ Roads.• II–IV: Depend on unforced identities or missing links; they do not necessarily follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Let b_l and c_b be distinct; connect Papers only to Clips. Then only I holds.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They assert overlaps not entailed by the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming all “board” elements coincide across premises.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.