Introduction / Context:
The premises assert a chain and a universal negative. We must assess which specific claims about overlaps are forced.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- M ⊆ F (all myths are fictions)
- F ∩ N = ∅ (no fiction is a novel)
- N ⊆ S (all novels are stories)
Concept / Approach:
A subset of a set that is disjoint from another set is also disjoint from that other set. Hence myths, being fictions, cannot be novels. Also, universal negatives eliminate any 'some' claim that contradicts them. Be cautious about existential claims derived from pure universal statements.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: No myth is a novel. Since M ⊆ F and F ∩ N = ∅, it follows that M ∩ N = ∅. So I is true.II: Some fictions are novels. Impossible by F ∩ N = ∅. So II is false.III: Some fictions are myths. This is true only if at least one myth exists; many tests accept this existence. However none of the options isolate I and III together, and all listed combinations include contradictions.IV: Some myths are novels. Directly contradicts I; false.
Verification / Alternative check:
Because the provided options pair I with II or IV or add impossible mixes, and there is no choice that cleanly represents 'I (and possibly III)' alone, the only consistent selection among the given choices is 'None of these'.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
A, B, C, D all include II and/or IV which contradict the universal negative or I.
Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that a subset of a disjoint set is also disjoint; assuming options must list all true conclusions when sometimes the correct meta-answer is that none of the combinations fits.
Final Answer:
None of these
Discussion & Comments