Syllogism — Identify which conclusions are compelled: Statements: • All astronomers are scientists. • Some scientists are shopkeepers. Conclusions: I. All astronomers are shopkeepers. II. Some shopkeepers are astronomers. III. Some shopkeepers are scientists. IV. All scientists are astronomers.

Introduction / Context:
We have one universal inclusion and one existential statement about scientists. We must filter out converses and overstatements, keeping only what the premises force.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: Astronomers ⊆ Scientists.
• S2: Some Scientists are Shopkeepers.
• Conclusions: I “Astronomers ⊆ Shopkeepers”; II “Some Shopkeepers are Astronomers”; III “Some Shopkeepers are Scientists”; IV “Scientists ⊆ Astronomers.”

Concept / Approach:
From S2 we immediately know there exist individuals who are both Scientists and Shopkeepers; that alone proves III. However, I and II require information linking Astronomers specifically to Shopkeepers, which we do not have. IV is a converse of S1 and is not supported.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Take x with Scientist(x) and Shopkeeper(x) from S2 ⇒ CIII holds.2) For I to hold, we would need Astronomers ⊆ Shopkeepers; the premises give no such link.3) For II to hold, some Shopkeeper would have to be an Astronomer; possible but not necessary.4) IV claims Scientists ⊆ Astronomers, the converse of S1; not implied.

Verification / Alternative check:
Build a model where Astronomers is a tiny subset of Scientists that does not overlap with Shopkeepers, while some other Scientists are Shopkeepers. Premises true, only III follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that include I, II or IV assert more than the premises provide or rely on illicit conversion.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that because some Scientists are Shopkeepers, subsets of Scientists (Astronomers) are also Shopkeepers; that is invalid without additional information.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion III follows.