Syllogism — Evaluate the conclusions about voting ability: Statements: • No women can vote. • Some women are politicians. Conclusions: I. Male politicians can vote. II. Some politicians can vote.

Introduction / Context:
The premises speak only about women and their voting ability, and the fact that some of these women are politicians. The conclusions attempt to generalize to male politicians or to “some politicians” in general. Such generalizations require additional premises not given.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: Women ⊆ Non-voters (i.e., no woman can vote).
• S2: Some Women are Politicians.
• Conclusions: C1 “Male politicians can vote.” C2 “Some politicians can vote.”

Concept / Approach:
From S2 and S1 we infer that some Politicians (those who are women) cannot vote. But nothing is stated about men or about the voting status of any politician outside that subset. Therefore, any claim that male politicians can (or cannot) vote, or that some politicians can vote, is not compelled by the premises alone.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) S2 gives ∃x Woman(x) ∧ Politician(x). From S1, those x cannot vote.2) For C1 to hold, we would need a rule about men’s voting rights; none is provided.3) For C2 to hold, we would need existence of at least one politician who can vote. The premises do not guarantee such a person; they only guarantee politicians who cannot vote (women politicians).

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct two models: (a) No one at all can vote; (b) Only men can vote. Both satisfy S1; S2 is satisfied by including some women politicians. In model (a), C1 and C2 are false; in model (b), C1 and C2 are true. Because truth varies across valid models, neither conclusion is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any choice affirming C1 or C2 reads extra information (about men or other politicians) into the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming properties about “politicians” as a whole from a statement about a restricted subgroup (women politicians).

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.