Syllogism – One particular and one universal: Statements: • Some phones are watches. • All watches are guns. Conclusions: I) All guns are watches. II) Some guns are phones.

Introduction / Context:
An existential (“some”) combined with a universal inclusion often yields a guaranteed “some” about the superset.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ∃ Phone ∩ Watch.
• Watch ⊆ Gun.

Concept / Approach:
The particular witness that is both Phone and Watch must also be a Gun. Hence “Some guns are phones” (II) is necessary. Claim (I) reverses the universal and is not supported.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Pick x ∈ Phone ∩ Watch (exists).Since Watch ⊆ Gun, x ∈ Gun.Therefore x ∈ Phone ∩ Gun, proving II.

Verification / Alternative check:
No model can satisfy the premises and negate II, because the existential passes through the inclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(I) claims Gun ⊆ Watch, which is not given.

Common Pitfalls:
Illicit conversion of universals.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.