Syllogism — Decide which conclusion(s) follow from the premises: Statements: • All mangoes are golden in colour. • No golden-coloured thing is cheap. Conclusions: I. All mangoes are cheap. II. Golden-coloured mangoes are not cheap.

Introduction / Context:
This is a straightforward application of subset and disjointness: all mangoes fall inside the set of golden things, and golden things are excluded from “cheap.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Mango ⊆ Golden.
• Golden ∩ Cheap = ∅.

Concept / Approach:
If all Mangoes are Golden, and Golden things are not Cheap, then Mangoes cannot be Cheap. A universal negative about Mangoes and Cheap follows; the offered conclusion II is a natural phrasing of that fact. Conclusion I contradicts the premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From Mango ⊆ Golden and Golden ∩ Cheap = ∅, deduce Mango ∩ Cheap = ∅.2) Therefore, “Golden-coloured mangoes are not cheap” is necessarily true (indeed, all mangoes are not cheap).3) “All mangoes are cheap” directly contradicts step 1 and is false.

Verification / Alternative check:
Diagram: Mangoes inside Golden; Cheap as a disjoint region from Golden. There is no overlap between Mangoes and Cheap.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that includes I is inconsistent with the premises; “both” or “either” cannot hold.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that a property of a superset (Golden not being Cheap) transfers to all of its subsets (Mangoes).

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion II follows.