Syllogism — Trains, Roads, Jungles, Flowers Statements: • Some trains are roads. • No road is a jungle. • All flowers are jungles. Conclusions: I. Some trains are flowers. II. Some trains are jungles. III. Some flowers are trains. IV. No road is flower.

Introduction / Context:
This syllogism checks whether you can combine a universal negative with a universal affirmative to deduce a new universal negative about a related class. The “some” statements here cannot be chained unless overlap is guaranteed.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some trains ∩ roads ≠ ∅.
• Roads ∩ jungles = ∅.
• All flowers ⊆ jungles.

Concept / Approach:
If a set A is disjoint from set B, then A is disjoint from any subset of B. Since flowers are a subset of jungles and roads are disjoint from jungles, roads must also be disjoint from flowers. Particular statements (“some”) cannot be chained without additional inclusion relations.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Model roads entirely outside jungles while placing all flowers inside jungles. Then I–III fail but IV is necessarily true.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Claims I–III need extra overlap not provided by the premises.
• “All follow” overstates; only IV is compelled.

Common Pitfalls:
Attempting to chain “some” statements; ignoring that a universal disjointness blocks any overlap claims.

Final Answer:
Only IV follows