Syllogism — Choose the conclusion(s) that must follow: Statements: • Some buses are trucks. • Some trucks are boats. • No boat is a jeep. Conclusions: I. Some jeeps are buses. II. Some boats are buses. III. Some jeeps are trucks.

Introduction / Context:
This item checks whether you can avoid over-linking two independent “some” statements and handle a negative statement correctly.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some buses are trucks.
• Some trucks are boats.
• No boat is a jeep.

Concept / Approach:
Two separate “some” premises do not force their intersections to meet. Also, “No boat is a jeep” only restricts boats relative to jeeps; it says nothing about other trucks or buses.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I (“Some jeeps are buses”): no link establishes jeeps with buses—cannot be concluded.2) II (“Some boats are buses”): the “some buses are trucks” set may be different from the “some trucks are boats” set; no necessity of overlap—cannot be concluded.3) III (“Some jeeps are trucks”): not supported; the negative premise only says boats are not jeeps.

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw a model where the truck portion that is a bus is disjoint from the truck portion that is a boat. All premises hold; none of I–III follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Each asserts a relationship not compelled by the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming separate “some” facts refer to the same elements; misusing the negative statement to claim more than it states.

Final Answer:
None follows.