Syllogism — Resolve a duplicated conclusion via minimal repair Statements: • Some doors are walls. • All walls are floors. • All floors are rooms. • Some rooms are windows. Conclusions: I) All walls are rooms. II) Some rooms are doors. III) Some rooms are doors. (duplicate of II in source; treated as the same claim) IV) Some floors are doors. Select the best-fitting option.

Introduction / Context:
The item as stored contains a duplicated conclusion (II and III are identical). Applying a minimal, transparent repair under the Recovery-First Policy, we treat II and III as the same proposition: “Some rooms are doors.” We then evaluate which conclusions necessarily follow from the premises and pick the option that best matches the forced truths given the duplicate.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ∃d: d ∈ Doors ∩ Walls.
• Walls ⊆ Floors.
• Floors ⊆ Rooms.
• ∃w: w ∈ Rooms ∩ Windows.

Concept / Approach:
Universal inclusions compose: Walls ⊆ Floors ⊆ Rooms implies All walls are rooms (I). The existential witness d lies in Doors ∩ Walls; since Walls ⊆ Rooms, d ∈ Rooms, so “Some rooms are doors” holds (both II and III as duplicates). Also, because Walls ⊆ Floors, the same d is a Floor; hence “Some floors are doors” (IV) follows. The “windows” premise is extraneous for these particular conclusions.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A Venn perspective with nested sets (Rooms largest, containing Floors, which contain Walls) and one dot at Doors ∩ Walls shows that dot also sits in Floors and Rooms, confirming II/III and IV, and trivially I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option b omits IV; option c omits I and IV; option a is false because multiple conclusions follow. Given the duplication, option d most accurately captures all distinct truths: I, (II/III), and IV.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring the effect of duplications in options or missing that an existential witness propagates through nested universals.

Final Answer:
Only I, III & IV follows (with III being a duplicate of II).