Statements:\nA) Some Indians are educated.\nB) Educated persons like small families.\nConclusions:\nI) All small families are educated.\nII) Some Indians like small families.

Introduction / Context:
This is a standard syllogism with a particular affirmative and a universal conditional. We test which conclusions necessarily follow without committing illicit conversions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some Indians are educated (∃x: Indian(x) ∧ Educated(x)).
• All educated persons like small families (Educated(x) → LikesSmallFamily(x)).

Concept / Approach:
Chain the particular instance with the universal rule: if some Indians are educated and all educated like small families, then those particular Indians like small families. Be careful: from “All educated like small families,” you cannot infer “All who like small families are educated.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From A: pick an Indian who is educated.2) From B: that person likes small families.3) Therefore, there exists at least one Indian who likes small families ⇒ Conclusion II follows.4) Conclusion I (“All small families are educated”) reverses the conditional and overgeneralizes; it does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
A simple Venn/arrow diagram confirms: Indian ∩ Educated maps into LikesSmallFamily; existence is preserved.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” wrongly accepts the illicit converse; “Only I” is invalid; “Neither” ignores the valid existential inference.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “all A → B” with “all B → A”; forgetting that “some” is enough to derive “some Indians like small families.”

Final Answer:
Only II can be concluded.