Premises — All students in my class are intelligent. Koushik (Kaushik) is not intelligent.\nQuestion — What conclusion necessarily follows?

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic categorical syllogism. The major premise says, “All students in my class are intelligent.” The second premise says, “Koushik is not intelligent.” We must identify what conclusion is forced by these two statements without importing outside facts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Set S = {students in my class}.
• Property I = “intelligent.”
• Premise 1: For every x in S, x has property I.
• Premise 2: Koushik does not have property I.

Concept / Approach:
From Premise 1, membership in S implies intelligent. Contraposition: if someone is not intelligent, they cannot be in S. Applying to Koushik (not intelligent) yields: Koushik ∉ S (i.e., not a student of my class). Avoid universal claims about all students or all non-intelligent people; stick to what follows for Koushik.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Suppose for contradiction Koushik were in the class. Then by Premise 1 he would be intelligent, contradicting Premise 2. Hence he cannot be in the class.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Generalizing beyond the stated set (“my class”) and confusing “some” with “all.”

Final Answer:
Koushik is not a student of my class.