Statements:\n1) Some clerks are poor.\n2) A is poor.\nConclusions:\nI) A is a clerk.\nII) A has a large family.

Introduction / Context:
This is a standard “Some A are B; C is B; therefore C is A?” trap. The logical fallacy is affirming the consequent in class terms. Additionally, adding unrelated attributes (like “large family”) is baseless.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some clerks ∈ poor.
• A ∈ poor.
• No link between poverty and family size is provided.

Concept / Approach:
From “Some clerks are poor,” the set of poor persons includes at least some clerks and possibly many non-clerks. Knowing A is poor does not place A inside the clerk subset. Conclusion II is entirely unsupported.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Draw sets: Poor (P) contains a subset Clerks∩P.2) A ∈ P does not imply A ∈ Clerks∩P.3) No information about family size is given → II fails.

Verification / Alternative check:
Counterexample: A could be a poor artisan, not a clerk—invalidating I. II remains unrelated.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I,” “Only II,” “Both,” and “Either” assert conclusions that overreach the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing subset membership with universal membership; adding extraneous assumptions.

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.