Statements: • Some spoons are forks. • Some forks are bowls. • All bowls are plates. • Some plates are utensils. Conclusions: I. Some utensils are forks. II. Some plates are forks. III. Some plates are spoons. IV. Some utensils are spoons. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
This syllogism mixes two existential statements with two universal inclusions. The aim is to see which conclusion is guaranteed by the given information without assuming unintended overlaps.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some spoons are forks.
• Some forks are bowls.
• All bowls are plates.
• Some plates are utensils.

Concept / Approach:
Whenever we have “All bowls are plates,” any specific bowl is necessarily a plate. Pair this with “Some forks are bowls,” and those particular forks are plates as well, giving an assured intersection between forks and plates. By contrast, conclusions that mention spoons or utensils require the very same element to pass through several “some” links, which is not forced.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From “Some forks are bowls” pick f1 ∈ Forks ∩ Bowls.2) From “All bowls are plates” we get f1 ∈ Plates. Hence f1 ∈ Forks ∩ Plates → Conclusion II holds.3) Nothing states that any of the spoon-forks are also bowls, or that the plates that are utensils are the very same plates that contain those forks or spoons. Thus I, III, and IV are not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a model where utensils are plates disjoint from bowls. Then utensils have no forced overlap with forks or spoons, keeping I and IV undetermined, while II remains true via forks that are bowls.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I: would need utensils to overlap the very plates that contain “fork bowls,” not guaranteed.
• III: would need a spoon-fork that is also a bowl; not stated.
• IV: would require utensils to overlap spoons; not stated.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that “some” statements refer to the same individuals; they need not.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.