Syllogism — Evaluate which conclusions necessarily follow from the statements below: Statements: • Some monkeys are dogs. • All dogs are cats. Conclusions to test: I. Some monkeys are cats. II. No dog is a cat.

Introduction / Context:
This question checks core categorical reasoning with one particular statement (“some”) and one universal inclusion (“all”). You must decide which conclusion must be true in every model that satisfies the premises, not merely in a likely scenario.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: Some monkeys are dogs (Monkeys ∩ Dogs ≠ ∅).
• S2: All dogs are cats (Dogs ⊆ Cats).
• Conclusions under test: C1 “Some monkeys are cats.” C2 “No dog is a cat.”

Concept / Approach:
When a subset relation holds (Dogs ⊆ Cats), every element that is a Dog is also a Cat. A “some” statement identifies at least one concrete overlap. Combining these ideas often lets us carry membership through a chain of sets.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From S1 pick an element x such that Monkey(x) and Dog(x).2) From S2, Dog(x) ⇒ Cat(x).3) Therefore Monkey(x) and Cat(x) for the same x. Hence “Some monkeys are cats” is guaranteed true.4) C2 claims “No dog is a cat,” but S2 explicitly states the opposite inclusion (all dogs are cats). Therefore C2 is false.

Verification / Alternative check:
Draw three sets with Dogs entirely inside Cats and Monkeys overlapping Dogs. The overlap region automatically lies within Cats, confirming C1. C2 contradicts the diagram and S2.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only conclusion II” and “either I or II” are impossible because S2 affirms dogs are cats.
• “Neither” ignores the necessary overlap derived in steps 1–3.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing universal inclusion with its converse, or overlooking that one witness from the “some” premise is enough to prove an existential conclusion.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows.