Syllogism — Players, Spectators, Theatres, Dramas Statements: • All players are spectators. • Some spectators are theatres. • Some theatres are dramas. Conclusions: I. Some dramas are spectators. II. Some players are dramas. III. Some theatres are players. IV. All spectators are players.

Introduction / Context:
This problem mixes one universal inclusion with two independent “some” statements. The key insight is that independent “some” overlaps may concern different elements, so you cannot automatically combine them to create a new intersection.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Players ⊆ Spectators.
• There exists Spectator ∩ Theatre.
• There exists Theatre ∩ Drama.

Concept / Approach:
Two separate “some” statements about Spectator∩Theatre and Theatre∩Drama do not ensure a common theatre element linking spectators to dramas. Without that shared witness, you cannot deduce “Some dramas are spectators.” Similarly, derived claims about players (a subset of spectators) also fail.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Model two distinct theatre elements: T1 that is a spectator and T2 that is a drama; keep T1 ≠ T2. All premises hold and none of the four conclusions is compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Any option asserting I–III assumes a shared witness not provided.
• IV reverses the subset and is invalid.

Common Pitfalls:
Chaining “some” statements as if they were “all”; reversing subset relations.

Final Answer:
None follows