Read the following syllogistic statements and conclusions, and answer the question: Statements: I. All cups are plates. II. No plate is a shop. Conclusions: I. No cup is a shop. II. No shop is a plate. Which of the given conclusions logically follow from the statements above?

Introduction / Context:
This question is a standard syllogism problem. You are given two categorical statements about sets (cups, plates and shops) and two candidate conclusions. You must decide which conclusions follow logically, assuming the statements are absolutely true, even if they conflict with common sense or real life. Syllogism questions test your ability to reason about subset and disjoint-set relationships.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: All cups are plates. (Every cup belongs to the set of plates.)

• Statement II: No plate is a shop. (The sets plates and shops are completely disjoint.)

• Conclusion I: No cup is a shop.

• Conclusion II: No shop is a plate.

• We must accept the statements as true and check which conclusions must also be true in all possible diagrams that satisfy the statements.

Concept / Approach:
Syllogisms can be visualised using Venn diagrams. "All cups are plates" means the cup circle lies completely inside the plate circle. "No plate is a shop" means the plate circle and the shop circle do not intersect at all. From these, we check whether the proposed conclusions necessarily hold in every such configuration.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Represent Statement I: All cups are plates. So the set Cup is a subset of Plate. Step 2: Represent Statement II: No plate is a shop. So Plate and Shop are disjoint sets; they have no overlap. Step 3: Test Conclusion I: No cup is a shop. Since all cups are inside the Plate set and Plate does not overlap with Shop, it is impossible for any cup to be in Shop. Therefore, Conclusion I must be true. Step 4: Test Conclusion II: No shop is a plate. Statement II "No plate is a shop" is logically equivalent to "No shop is a plate", because "no A is B" is symmetrical: if there is no object that is both A and B, then equally there is no object that is both B and A. Hence Conclusion II also must be true.

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw three sets: Cups inside Plates, and Shops completely separate from Plates. You will see instantly that the Cup set is also separate from the Shop set, confirming Conclusion I. Also, no element of Shops can be in Plates, which restates Conclusion II. Any attempt to violate either conclusion would force a contradiction with the given statements.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A and Option B each keep only one of the two conclusions, but as we have seen both are valid. Option D says that neither conclusion follows, which is clearly false because both conclusions directly reflect the given set relations.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes forget that "No plate is a shop" automatically means "No shop is a plate" as well, and they treat them as different. Others overcomplicate the diagram or think that because cups are not mentioned in Statement II, nothing can be said about them and shops. Always track how subsets and disjoint sets interact.

Final Answer:
Both conclusions are logically forced by the statements, so both conclusions I and II follow.