Syllogism — Premises: A) All girls are proud. B) All proud will be humiliated one day. Inferences: I) All girls will be humiliated one day. II) Some girls will be humiliated one day.

Introduction / Context:
Two chained universal premises are given. We assess whether the universal and existential versions of the resulting consequence follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A: Girls ⊆ Proud.
• B: Proud ⊆ HumiliatedOneDay.

Concept / Approach:
By transitivity, Girls ⊆ HumiliatedOneDay. From a universal inclusion, an existential statement 'Some girls ...' is also valid provided at least one girl exists; typical reasoning tests assume non-empty everyday categories.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Venn interpretation shows the Girls circle entirely inside Proud, which lies inside HumiliatedOneDay, making both I and II true in ordinary contexts.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I follows: ignores the routine existential inference.
• Only II follows: the universal also follows by subset transitivity.
• Neither: contradicted by the clear chain of subsets.

Common Pitfalls:
Forgetting that universal subset chains justify corresponding existential conclusions when the category is assumed non-empty.

Final Answer:
Both I & II follow.