In the following question, two statements and two conclusions are given. Consider the statements to be true, even if they appear to contradict commonly known facts, and decide which conclusion(s) logically follow: Statement I: All cells are chargers. Statement II: All batteries are cells. Conclusions: I. Some chargers are batteries. II. All batteries are chargers. Which of the given conclusions follows or follow logically from the statements?

Introduction / Context:
This is a syllogism question involving three sets: cells, chargers and batteries. You are given two universal statements and asked whether each of two proposed conclusions follows logically. Syllogisms like this test your ability to track subset relationships and infer new relationships between categories.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: All cells are chargers. (Cells ⊆ Chargers.)

• Statement II: All batteries are cells. (Batteries ⊆ Cells.)

• Conclusion I: Some chargers are batteries.

• Conclusion II: All batteries are chargers.

• Assume that the sets mentioned are non empty, which is standard in many exam level syllogism questions when talking about real world objects like batteries and cells.

Concept / Approach:
We translate each statement into set notation and form chains of inclusion. "All batteries are cells" means every battery is inside the set of cells. "All cells are chargers" means every cell is inside the set of chargers. Combining these two statements gives us a chain from batteries to chargers through cells. From that, we test each conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From Statement II, Batteries ⊆ Cells. Step 2: From Statement I, Cells ⊆ Chargers. Step 3: Combine these: if Batteries ⊆ Cells and Cells ⊆ Chargers, then Batteries ⊆ Chargers. This directly yields that all batteries are chargers, which is Conclusion II. Step 4: Therefore, Conclusion II clearly follows from the given statements. Step 5: Now test Conclusion I, which says "Some chargers are batteries." If all batteries are chargers and there is at least one battery, then that battery is also a charger. Hence, there exists at least one object that is both a charger and a battery, so "Some chargers are batteries" holds. Step 6: Under the usual exam assumption that categories like batteries are not empty, Conclusion I also follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a diagram: draw three nested sets. The innermost set is Batteries. Around it, a larger circle called Cells. Around that, an even larger circle called Chargers. In this picture, every battery is a cell, and every cell is a charger. Clearly, all batteries are chargers (Conclusion II). Also, since at least one battery exists, that battery lies inside the Chargers set, so some chargers are indeed batteries (Conclusion I).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A (only I follows) is wrong because it ignores the stronger relationship that all batteries are chargers. Option B (only II follows) is incomplete in the usual exam context where categories are assumed non empty. Option D (neither follows) contradicts the obvious subset chain Batteries ⊆ Cells ⊆ Chargers.

Common Pitfalls:
Some students strictly adopt a no existence rule for universal statements and argue that "All X are Y" does not guarantee that any X actually exists, which would block conclusions starting with "Some". However, in most competitive exams about real objects, the existence of at least one member is implicitly assumed. Others make the mistake of reversing the subset and think that some chargers must be cells or that all chargers are batteries, which is not given.

Final Answer:
On the usual exam interpretation, both conclusions I and II follow from the given statements.