Syllogism — Premises: P) All men are women. Q) All women are crazy. Conclusions: I) All men are crazy. II) All the crazy are men. III) Some of the crazy are men. IV) Some of the crazy are women.

Introduction / Context:
Two universal inclusions form a chain: Men ⊆ Women ⊆ Crazy. We test which conclusions necessarily follow in standard syllogistic settings common to reasoning exams.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• P: Men ⊆ Women.
• Q: Women ⊆ Crazy.
• Routine assumption: the categories referenced (women, men) are not empty in ordinary-language reasoning problems.

Concept / Approach:
From chained subsets, we get Men ⊆ Crazy (I). The statement II claims the converse of Women ⊆ Crazy and is not supported. Statements III and IV are existential claims that follow if the relevant categories have at least one member.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct any world with at least one woman and one man; then I, III, IV are true while II can be false if there exist crazy persons who are not men.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• All follow: II fails.
• None follow: I certainly follows; III and IV follow under standard non-emptiness.
• Only II and III: II is wrong; IV also follows.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing universal subset with its converse; overlooking typical non-emptiness assumptions used in exam syllogisms.

Final Answer:
Only I, III and IV follow.