Syllogism — Tigers, Lions, Rabbits, Horses Statements: • Some tigers are lions. • Some lions are rabbits. • Some rabbits are horses. Conclusions: I. Some tigers are horses. II. Some rabbits are tigers. III. Some horses are lions. IV. All horses are rabbits.

Introduction / Context:
This problem is a classic illustration that chaining several “some” statements does not justify concluding overlap among the first and last sets. Each “some” could refer to disjoint subgroups that never meet.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There exists Tiger ∩ Lion.
• There exists Lion ∩ Rabbit.
• There exists Rabbit ∩ Horse.

Concept / Approach:
With only particular affirmatives, intersections need not align. You cannot infer transitive overlap for “some.” Likewise, universal statements like “All horses are rabbits” cannot be derived from a single “some.”

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
The single countermodel suffices to show none of the four conclusions is logically necessary given the premises.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Any option listing I–IV assumes forced overlaps that the premises do not guarantee.

Common Pitfalls:
Illegally chaining “some” statements; confusing “some” with “all.”

Final Answer:
None follows