Syllogism — Validate Conclusions from Given Statements Statements: • Some questions are answers. • Some answers are writers. • All writers are poets. Conclusions: (1) Some writers are answers. (2) Some poets are questions. (3) All the questions are poets. (4) Some poets are answers.

Introduction / Context:
Syllogism questions test whether a conclusion must be true based strictly on the given statements. We cannot add outside facts, and we must avoid assuming overlaps unless they are logically compelled by the premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some questions are answers.
• Some answers are writers.
• All writers are poets.
• Conclusions to evaluate: (1) Some writers are answers. (2) Some poets are questions. (3) All the questions are poets. (4) Some poets are answers.

Concept / Approach:
Use classic set/venn reasoning. “All X are Y” means X is a subset of Y. “Some X are Y” indicates a definite non-empty intersection. Only conclusions that must hold for all diagrams consistent with the premises are valid.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw Venn sets for Questions (Q), Answers (A), Writers (W), and Poets (P) with W entirely inside P. Place one element in A∩W (proves (1) and (4)). Place a separate element in Q∩A that is not in W. This diagram satisfies premises while falsifying (2) and (3).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only (1) and (2): (2) is not forced.
• Only (1) and (3): (3) is too strong.
• Only (2) and (4): (2) fails.
• None of the above: Incorrect because (1) and (4) do follow.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that “some … are …” chains guarantee overlap across multiple “some” statements. They do not. Only a single “all” statement permits a definite subset relation.

Final Answer:
Only (1) and (4)