Syllogism — evaluate necessary conclusions from partial overlaps Statements: • Some clothes are marbles. • Some marbles are bags. Conclusions to evaluate: I. No cloth is a bag. II. All marbles are bags. III. Some bags are clothes. IV. No marble is a cloth.

Introduction / Context:
This item checks your understanding of what can be guaranteed from two independent some-type statements. A common mistake is to chain two overlaps through a middle class and conclude an overlap between the outer classes. Without explicit linkage, that inference is not valid.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• C = clothes, M = marbles, B = bags.
• Some C are M. So C ∩ M is nonempty.
• Some M are B. So M ∩ B is nonempty.
• No other relations are specified.

Concept / Approach:
A statement of the form some A are B only ensures a nonempty intersection between A and B. Two such statements sharing a middle term (here M) do not force the outer sets to overlap. Therefore conclusions asserting no or some between C and B must be rejected unless forced by the premises. Universal statements like all M are B are also not justified by a mere some relation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Model: Let M = {m1, m2}. Let C = {m1}. Let B = {m2}. Then some C are M (via m1) and some M are B (via m2) hold, while I–IV are all false or not forced, confirming that none follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only either I or IV / only either I or II / only either I or III: each claims that exactly one of the listed conclusions must follow; in fact, none is necessary.
• None of these: option C already states the correct outcome.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming transitivity for some-statements; overlooking that IV directly contradicts the first premise.

Final Answer:
None follows