Syllogism — Judge the conclusions: Statements: • Some managers are young. • All boys are young. Conclusions: I. Some boys are managers. II. Some managers are boys.

Introduction / Context:
Here two statements constrain who is “young,” but say nothing directly about overlap between Boys and Managers. The options tempt you to infer intersections that are not forced by the premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: Some Managers are Young.
• S2: All Boys are Young (Boys ⊆ Young).
• Conclusions: I “Some Boys are Managers.” II “Some Managers are Boys.”

Concept / Approach:
Two distinct subsets of a larger set (here, Young) need not overlap each other. The premises allow Managers and Boys to be disjoint subsets of Young, or to overlap; nothing forces an intersection.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Construct a model: Let Young be a big set. Place some Managers inside Young. Place all Boys inside Young, but in a region disjoint from Managers.2) Both premises hold (Managers ⊆ Young partly; Boys ⊆ Young entirely), yet neither I nor II is true in this model.3) Since the conclusions fail in a valid model, they are not necessary consequences.

Verification / Alternative check:
If you instead draw an overlap between Boys and Managers, I and II could become true—but “could be true” is not enough. We need “must be true.” Since countermodels exist, neither conclusion follows.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option claiming one or both follow confuses possibility with necessity.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that two sets included in a third must overlap, which is a common but invalid intuition.

Final Answer:
Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows.