Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only (II) follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This problem tests the difference between an overlap that is directly stated and a transitive overlap that is not guaranteed.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
From the second premise, the intersection Magazines ∩ Novels is non-empty; therefore (II) is immediately true. However, the first premise links Books to Magazines, not directly to Novels; the overlapping subsets could be disjoint inside Magazines, so (I) is not necessary.
Step-by-Step:
1) Use premise 2 to assert ∃ (Novels ∩ Magazines).2) Premise 1 asserts ∃ (Books ∩ Magazines).3) The two “some” groups inside Magazines need not be the same individuals, so (I) is not compelled.
Verification:
Draw Magazines as a large set with two disjoint pockets: one overlapping Books, another overlapping Novels. Premises hold while (I) fails.
Final Answer:
Only (II) follows.
Discussion & Comments