Syllogism — Analogy trap: Dogs have four legs. Tables have four legs. Conclusions: I) Tables are dogs. II) Dogs are tables. Determine which, if any, follow logically.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests understanding of the fallacy of affirming the consequent / property-sharing. Two categories share a common attribute (four legs), but that alone does not license identity or inclusion conclusions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Dogs have four legs.
• Tables have four legs.
• No premise states any inclusion or equivalence between Dogs and Tables.

Concept / Approach:
Having a common property does not imply class identity. Sets can overlap, be disjoint, or relate in many ways despite sharing attributes. Syllogistic conclusions require explicit subset/equality statements.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Counterexample: there exist tables without any relation to dogs besides leg count; likewise dogs are living beings, not furniture. Premises are satisfied; conclusions fail.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A, B: assert unjustified identity/inclusion. Option C: suggests one of them must hold, which is false.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing shared attributes with class equivalence; ignoring the need for subset/equality premises.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.