Statements: • Some sweets are chocolates. • Some chocolates are mints. • Some mints are food. • Some food is diet. Conclusions: I. No sweets are diet. II. No food is chocolates. III. Some sweets are diet. IV. Some sweets are food. Choose the option that must follow.

Introduction / Context:
This item chains four “some” statements across different sets. Such chains do not force a single individual to pass through all sets, so we must resist concluding intersections that are merely possible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ∃x ∈ Sweets ∩ Chocolates.
• ∃y ∈ Chocolates ∩ Mints.
• ∃z ∈ Mints ∩ Food.
• ∃w ∈ Food ∩ Diet.

Concept / Approach:
The witnesses x, y, z, w can be different. Therefore, any conclusion that relies on a single individual traveling from Sweets all the way to Diet is not guaranteed. Likewise, global negations (no sweets are diet; no food is chocolates) are not supported by the premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: “No sweets are diet” contradicts a possible model where the sweet-chocolate individual is also mint, food, and diet; since the premises allow it, I does not necessarily follow.• II: Similarly, nothing forbids some food also being chocolate in a permitted model; II does not necessarily follow.• III and IV: These require that the sweet-chocolate individual also lie in food or diet. The premises do not force that coincidence.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct two models: one where all four “some” statements share the same element (making III true), and another where each is distinct (making III false). Because truth values vary while premises remain true, none of I–IV is logically necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They claim necessity where only possibility exists.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “some” chains guarantee a single traversing element; they do not.

Final Answer:
None follows.