Syllogism — Assess the conclusions: Statements: • No man is a monkey. • Hari is a man. Conclusions: I. Hari is not a monkey. II. All men are not Hari.

Introduction / Context:
This is a direct test of applying a universal negative to a named individual. Conclusion II is phrased ambiguously in everyday English and must be handled with care in formal reasoning.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: Man ∩ Monkey = ∅ (no man is a monkey).
• S2: Hari ∈ Man.
• Conclusions: C1 “Hari is not a monkey.” C2 “All men are not Hari.”

Concept / Approach:
From a universal negative, any individual in the first set cannot be in the second set. For C2, the phrase “All men are not Hari” usually reads as “No man is Hari,” which contradicts S2 (Hari is a man). Some exam setters intend it to mean “Not all men are Hari,” which is a trivial truth but not a syllogistic consequence stated by the premises. Standard keys therefore reject C2.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From S2, Hari is a Man.2) From S1, no Man is a Monkey.3) Therefore Hari cannot be a Monkey. C1 follows.4) C2, read as “No man is Hari,” contradicts S2; read as “Not all men are Hari,” it is a tautological remark not licensed by the premises as a syllogistic conclusion. Hence C2 does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Instantiate any model where Men and Monkeys are disjoint and Hari is in Men. C1 holds in every such model; C2 fails on the strict interpretation and is not a standard syllogistic inference on the weak interpretation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including C2 elevates an ambiguous, non-syllogistic reading to necessity, which is incorrect.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading natural-language quantifiers like “all … not” and ignoring the disjointness provided by universal negatives.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion I follows.