Syllogism — Premises: (a) All cupboards are watches. (b) All watches are costly. Inferences: I) All cupboards are costly. II) Some costly things are cupboards.

Introduction / Context:
Two universals create a subset chain. We must judge a universal and an existential inference that naturally arise from that chain.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cupboards ⊆ Watches.
• Watches ⊆ Costly.
• Ordinary non-emptiness assumption for Cupboards to validate the existential.

Concept / Approach:
Transitivity yields Cupboards ⊆ Costly, establishing I. If at least one cupboard exists, it is costly, establishing II: 'Some costly things are cupboards'.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Venn diagram placement confirms I and supports II with non-emptiness.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options asserting only one or none ignore the straightforward chain.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that an existential conclusion typically follows in exam settings when categories are assumed to exist.

Final Answer:
Both of them follow.