Since each combination of premises has two particular premises, so no definite conclusion follows.

II is the converse of first premise and so it holds.

Some boxes are hammers. Some hammers are beads.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Some hammers are beads. All beads are rings.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some hammers are rings'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some boxes are hammers. Some hammers are rings.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

I is the converse of the second premise, II is the converse of the third premise and III is the converse of the first premise and as such, all three of them follow.

All cars are bottles. All bottles are windows.

Since both the premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal and shouldn't contain the middle term, So, it follows that 'All cars are windows'. Thus, I follows.

Also, III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

All dolls are windows. All bottles are windows.

Since the middle term 'windows' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

All cars are windows. All bottles are windows.

Again, the middle term 'windows' is not distributed even once in the premises.

So, no definite conclusion follows.

All tigers are lions. No cow is lion.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and shouldn't contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No tiger is cow'.

Some camels are cows. No cow is lion.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not lions'. Some camels are cows. No tiger is cow.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some camels are not tigers'.

All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees.

Since the middle term 'toys' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows.

Some toys are trees. Some angels are trees.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

III is the converse of the first premise and so it holds.

Some rats are cats. Some cats are dogs.

Since both the premises are particular, no definite conclusion follows.

Some cats are dogs. No dog is cow.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some cats are not cows'.

All tigers are jungles. No jungle is bird.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term.

So, it follows that 'No tiger is bird'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

No jungle is bird. Some birds are rains.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative (O-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some jungles are not rains'.

Since I and II also involve the same terms and form a complementary pair, so either I or II follows.

All snakes are trees. Some trees are roads.

Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.

Some trees are roads. All roads are mountains.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trees are mountains'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

All snakes are trees. Some trees are mountains.

Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, so no definite conclusion follows.

All trees are flowers. No flower is fruit.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No tree is fruit'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it follows.

All branches are fruits. No flower is fruit.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative (E-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No branch is flower'.

All trees are flowers. No branch is tree.

As discussed above, it follows that 'No tree is branch'. So, III follows.

Hence, both II and III follow.