Syllogism — Evaluate the following conclusions: Statements: • Some flies are ants. • All insects are ants. Conclusions: I. All flies are ants. II. Some ants are insects.

Introduction / Context:
The premises relate three sets: flies, ants, and insects. One is a particular inclusion; the other is a universal inclusion. We must judge two proposed conclusions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some Flies are Ants (Flies ∩ Ants ≠ ∅).
• All Insects are Ants (Insects ⊆ Ants).

Concept / Approach:
From a “some” statement we cannot jump to “all.” However, if all insects are ants, then (assuming insects exist) there certainly exist ants that are insects — giving a “some” conclusion about ants and insects.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) C1 (“All flies are ants”) is not forced: the premise only states that some flies are ants; other flies could be non-ants.2) C2 (“Some ants are insects”) is necessary if insects exist, because every insect is an ant; therefore the insect population (non-empty in typical reasoning sets) sits inside ants, witnessing “some.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Model with a Flies set that partly overlaps Ants and partly lies outside; make Insects a subset within Ants. Premises hold while C1 fails and C2 holds.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options claiming C1 or both C1 and C2 are too strong; “neither” ignores the guaranteed existence of insect-ants in standard settings.

Common Pitfalls:
Illicit conversion from “some” to “all,” and overlooking the existential import typically assumed for familiar categories such as insects.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion II follows.