Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Both I and II follow
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This is a classic combination of a universal inclusion and a universal exclusion. We test whether each conclusion is forced.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
If Eskimos share no members with English-speaking, and Americans are entirely within English-speaking, then Eskimos cannot be Americans. Also, 'No Eskimos are English-speaking' is equivalent to 'No English-speakers are Eskimos' in set-theoretic negation.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
Venn diagrams show disjoint sets Eskimos and EnglishSpeaking, with Americans inside EnglishSpeaking; thus both conclusions hold.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option denying either I or II contradicts the disjointness and inclusion facts.
Common Pitfalls:
Forgetting that 'No A are B' is bidirectional in effect for membership claims (mutual exclusivity).
Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.
Discussion & Comments