Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only conclusion I follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This problem mixes a universal negative with an individual membership statement. We check which conclusions necessarily follow about the individual and about the class of girls.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Substituting the individual into the universal exclusion gives a certain negative about Sowmya. The second conclusion is a poorly formed generalization about identity of all girls with Sowmya and is not entailed by the premises.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I) Since Sowmya is a girl and no girl is a parrot, it follows Sowmya is not a parrot — valid.II) 'All girls are not Sowmya' is either trivially true in ordinary usage or ill-posed in formal syllogism, but it does not follow as a necessary logical consequence from the given premises; syllogism conclusions should relate directly to provided predicates.Verification / Alternative check:The only relation established is between Girls and Parrots, plus Sowmya's membership in Girls; nothing licenses a universal identity/inequality statement about all girls and Sowmya.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option granting II introduces a statement not derivable from the premises within standard syllogistic form.
Common Pitfalls:Accepting statements that are colloquially obvious but not logically entailed by the given categorical premises.
Final Answer:Only conclusion I follows.
Discussion & Comments