Some uniforms are covers. All covers are papers.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some uniforms are papers'. All covers are papers. All papers are bags.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative (A-type) and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All covers are bags'. Thus, I follows. The converse of this conclusion i.e. 'Some bags are covers' also holds.

Some uniforms are covers. All covers are bags.

Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some uniforms are bags', The converse of this conclusion i.e. 'Some bags are uniforms' also holds.

Further, the converse of the third premise i.e. 'Some bags are papers' holds.

Now, II is the cumulative result of the conclusions 'Some bags are covers', 'Some bags are papers' and 'Some bags are uniforms'. Thus, II follows.

Some horses are lions. No rabbit 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 horses are not rabbits'.

All rabbits are tables. No rabbit is lion.

Since the middle term 'rabbits' is distributed twice, the conclusion must be particular.

Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. So, it follows that 'Some tables are not lions'. Since I and III involve the same terms and form a complementary pair, so either I or III follows.

All benches are desks. Some desks are roads.

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

Some desks are roads. All roads are pillars.

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

All benches are desks. Some desks are pillars.

Since the middle term 'desks' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, I and IV involve the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. So, either I or IV follows.

Some dogs are rats. All rats are trees.

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

All rats are trees. Some trees are not dogs.

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

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

Some bricks are trees. All trees are pens.

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

All trees are pens. All pens are boats.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All trees are boats'.

Some bricks are trees. All trees are boats.

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

All cups are glasses. Some glasses are bowls.

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

Some glasses are bowls. No bowl is a plate.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some glasses are not plates'.

Some trains are roads. No road is jungle.

Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trains are not jungles'.

No road is jungle. All flowers are jungles.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No flower is road'. IV is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

Some trains are roads, No flower is road.

As discussed above, it follows that 'Some trains are not flowers'.

IV is the converse of the second premise and so it holds.

All doors are buses. All buses are leaves.

Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'All doors are leaves'. III is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

All buses are leaves. No leaf is a flower.

Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No bus is flower'. II is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.

All doors are buses. No bus is flower.

As discussed above, it follows that 'No door is flower'. I is the converse of this conclusion and so it also holds.

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

All oceans are rivers. Some springs are rivers.

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

All wells are springs. Some springs are rivers.

Since the middle term 'springs' is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows. However, II and IV involve the extreme terms and form a complementary pair. Thus, either II or IV follows.

Since each combination of premises shall contain two particular premises, no definite conclusion can be drawn.