Syllogism — Determine the valid conclusions from the following: Statements: • Some books are papers. • Some papers are desks. • All desks are chairs. Conclusions: I. Some books are desks. II. Some papers are chairs. III. Some books are chairs.

Introduction / Context:
The task is to test necessity of conclusions from three premises mixing “some” (particular) and “all” (universal) statements.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some books are papers.
• Some papers are desks.
• All desks are chairs.

Concept / Approach:
Only conclusions that hold in every permissible diagram (Venn model) are valid. Particular statements certify existence; universal statements give subset relations.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) “Some papers are desks” and “All desks are chairs” imply “Some papers are chairs.” So II is necessary.2) I (“Some books are desks”) would require overlap among the specific “books∩papers” and “papers∩desks.” The two “some” portions might be disjoint; thus I is not necessary.3) III (“Some books are chairs”) would require the “books∩papers” part to lie within desks (then chairs). That is not forced; hence III is not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Create a model where the “books∩papers” area is separate from the “papers∩desks” area. II remains true, I and III fail—confirming only II follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “None follows”: II clearly follows.
• “Only I” / “Only III”: unsupported.
• “All follow”: overstates the logical force.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming all “some” parts coincide; they need not.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.