Syllogism — Premises: (a) No girl is a parrot. (b) Sowmya is a girl. Conclusions: I) Sowmya is not a parrot. II) All girls are not Sowmya. Choose the conclusion(s) that follow.

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:

• No Girl is a Parrot (Girls ∩ Parrots = ∅).
• Sowmya ∈ Girls.

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:

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.