Syllogism — Decide which conclusions must follow: Statements: • All roses are yellow. • Some roses are flowers. Conclusions: I. Some roses are yellow. II. All roses are flowers.

Introduction / Context:
Here one universal statement and one particular statement are given about “roses,” “yellow,” and “flowers.” We must determine which conclusions are logically compelled.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• All Roses ⊆ Yellow.
• Some Roses are Flowers (Roses ∩ Flowers ≠ ∅).

Concept / Approach:
From a universal inclusion All Roses ⊆ Yellow, it immediately follows that any Rose is Yellow. In particular, the existence of at least some Roses (implied by the second premise) guarantees that “Some Roses are Yellow.” But there is no statement that places all Roses inside Flowers; only “some” roses are flowers is given.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Because all Roses are Yellow, any existing Rose is Yellow.2) The premise “Some Roses are Flowers” confirms existence of Roses; hence “Some Roses are Yellow” is necessarily true.3) There is no premise that says all Roses are Flowers, so Conclusion II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw Roses entirely inside Yellow; mark a portion of Roses that overlaps Flowers. This satisfies the premises and shows I holds, II need not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only II” / “Both”: overreach.
• “Neither”: ignores that I is guaranteed once Roses exist.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “some” equals “all” for the Roses–Flowers relationship.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion I follows.