Syllogism — Evaluate the conclusions from the following information: Statements: • Some clerks are poor. • A is poor. Conclusions to test: I. A is a clerk. II. A has a large family. Select the option that states which conclusion(s) necessarily follow.

Introduction / Context:
This verbal-reasoning item checks whether you can distinguish between what must be true and what might be true when an individual fact (about “A”) is paired with a general statement (“Some clerks are poor”).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement S1: Some clerks are poor.
• Statement S2: A is poor.
• Conclusion C1: A is a clerk.
• Conclusion C2: A has a large family.

Concept / Approach:
“Some clerks are poor” means there exists at least one person who is both a clerk and poor. It does not say that all poor people are clerks, nor even that most poor people are clerks. Therefore, from “A is poor,” we cannot infer A’s occupation. Also, nothing in S1 or S2 mentions family size, so that topic is logically irrelevant.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) S1 grants existence: ∃x (Clerk(x) ∧ Poor(x)).2) S2 states Poor(A).3) To deduce C1, we would need a rule like “All poor are clerks,” which is not given. So C1 is not necessary.4) C2 (“A has a large family”) is entirely unsupported by either S1 or S2; it introduces a new predicate not connected to the premises.

Verification / Alternative check:
Create two models: (a) A is poor and a clerk; (b) A is poor but not a clerk. Both satisfy S1 and S2. Because the truth of C1 varies, it does not follow. And C2 is never compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I follows” or “Both follow”: overstate what is implied.
• “Only II follows”: no family information is present.
• “None of these”: incorrect since one option correctly says neither follows.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “some” behaves like “all,” and importing real-world assumptions (e.g., poverty correlates with family size) into a purely logical problem.

Final Answer:
Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows.