Syllogism with negative and universal claims — infer only what is necessary Statements: • No table is fruit. • No fruit is window. • All windows are chairs. Conclusions to evaluate: I. No window is table. II. No chair is fruit. III. No chair is table. IV. All chairs are windows.

Introduction / Context:
This question blends universal negative statements (no A is B) with a universal affirmative (all windows are chairs). The goal is to avoid illicit conversions and not read more than what is stated. We must determine which conclusions are logically compelled.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No table is fruit.
• No fruit is window.
• All windows are chairs.
• Nothing is said about non window chairs or any direct link between chairs and tables.

Concept / Approach:
From all windows are chairs we can infer chairs include all windows, but not that all chairs are windows (converse is invalid). From no fruit is window and all windows are chairs, we only know windows are not fruits. Whether chairs other than windows are fruits remains unknown. Similarly, no link is provided between windows and tables.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Create a model: let W be a subset of C (chairs). Let some chairs outside W be fruits. Let some tables be non fruits. All premises hold, while I–IV all fail, proving none follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I and II / Only III and IV / All follow: each asserts conclusions not guaranteed by the premises.
• None of these: option A already states the correct outcome that none follows.

Common Pitfalls:
Converting “all windows are chairs” to “all chairs are windows”; assuming properties of the subset (windows) extend to the superset (chairs).

Final Answer:
None follows