Syllogism — Judge which conclusions must follow: Statements: • Some pots are buckets. • All buckets are tubs. • All tubs are drums. Conclusions: I. Some drums are pots. II. All tubs are buckets. III. Some drums are buckets.

Introduction / Context:
This is a chain of subset relations with one existential (“Some pots are buckets”). We must decide which conclusions necessarily hold.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some pots are buckets (pots∩buckets ≠ ∅).
• All buckets are tubs (buckets ⊆ tubs).
• All tubs are drums (tubs ⊆ drums).

Concept / Approach:
Use transitivity of subsets and track the existential element guaranteed by “Some pots are buckets.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From “Some pots are buckets” and the chain buckets ⊆ tubs ⊆ drums, those specific pots are also drums. Hence “Some drums are pots” is necessary (Conclusion I true).2) “All tubs are buckets” is the converse of the given “All buckets are tubs.” Converse need not hold; Conclusion II is false.3) Because buckets ⊆ drums and at least one bucket exists (from “Some pots are buckets”), there exists at least one object that is both a drum and a bucket. Hence “Some drums are buckets” is necessary (Conclusion III true).

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw a chain Pots → Buckets → Tubs → Drums with a marked example element in pots∩buckets. The element traces into drums, confirming I and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I and II”/“Only II and III”/“All”: each wrongly includes II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming converses of universal statements and overlooking the existential support provided by “Some…”

Final Answer:
Only I and III follows.