Syllogism — Evaluate conclusions from the statements: Statements: Some peons are poor. X is poor. Conclusions: I) X is a peon. II) X has a large family. Decide which conclusion(s), if any, logically follow(s) from the given statements.

Introduction / Context:
In categorical syllogisms, we examine whether a conclusion must be true given the premises. The premises here are: (1) Some peons are poor, and (2) X is poor. We test whether the conclusions about X's being a peon or having a large family necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise 1: Some peons are poor (at least one individual is both peon and poor).
• Premise 2: X is poor (membership only in the set 'poor' is known for X).
• No information is provided about X's family size.

Concept / Approach:
Translate to sets: P = peons, R = poor. Premise 1 says P ∩ R is non-empty. Premise 2 says X ∈ R. A conclusion about X ∈ P would require that all poor are peons (R ⊆ P) or at least that this particular X is identified within P ∩ R, which is not given. Family-size claims are extraneous to premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If we construct a model where some peons are poor and there are other poor people who are not peons, X could be one of those non-peon poor. Thus I need not hold. Family size data is absent, so II cannot hold.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I follows: invalid; X need not be a peon.
• Only II follows: invalid; no family information.
• Both follow: invalid for reasons above.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing 'some' with 'all' and assuming properties about X just because X shares a broad set label. Also, adding facts (like family size) not present in premises.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.