Syllogism — Premises: (A) Some cats are dogs. (B) Some dogs are stones. Conclusions: I) No cat is a stone. II) All dogs are stones. III) Some stones are cats. IV) No dog is a cat. Determine which, if any, follow.

Introduction / Context:
We have two existential premises involving overlaps among cats, dogs, and stones. We must determine which stronger universal/negative or existential cross-set conclusions are forced.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some Cats are Dogs (Cats ∩ Dogs ≠ ∅).
• Some Dogs are Stones (Dogs ∩ Stones ≠ ∅).
• No universal statements are given.

Concept / Approach:
From two separate 'some' statements, we cannot infer universal negatives or complete inclusion. Also, the overlapping dogs in the two premises need not be the same dogs.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a model with three disjoint groups except for minimal overlaps exactly as stated: choose Dog1 ∈ Cats and Dog2 ∈ Stones with Dog1 ≠ Dog2. All premises true, but I, II, III, IV as evaluated above show none necessarily follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
All listed combinations assert at least one of I–III–IV as true, which is not compelled.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the 'some' elements are the same individual across premises; overgeneralizing from existence to universals.

Final Answer:
None follows.