In the following question, two statements are given followed by two conclusions. Treat the statements as true, even if they appear to be at variance with commonly known facts, and then decide which conclusion definitely follows. Statement 1: Some wild animals are carnivores. Statement 2: All wild animals are lions. Conclusions: I. All carnivores are lions. II. Some lions are carnivores.

Introduction / Context:
This syllogism problem connects the sets wild animals, carnivores, and lions. You are given one particular statement and one universal statement and must decide which conclusions are logically forced. The question checks whether you can move correctly through subset relationships and avoid overstating what the premises allow.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement 1: Some wild animals are carnivores. At least one wild animal is also a carnivore. - Statement 2: All wild animals are lions. Every wild animal lies inside the set of lions. - Conclusion I: All carnivores are lions. - Conclusion II: Some lions are carnivores. - No further information about carnivores in general is provided.

Concept / Approach:
The statement all wild animals are lions means that the wild animal set is a subset of the lion set. The statement some wild animals are carnivores gives us a non empty intersection between wild animals and carnivores. Because every wild animal is a lion, any wild animal that is a carnivore is also a lion. This allows us to derive at least one lion that is a carnivore. However, nothing in the statements tells us that every carnivore must be a lion, because there could be carnivores that are not wild animals.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From Statement 2, draw a circle for lions and place the wild animal circle completely inside it, because all wild animals are lions. Step 2: From Statement 1, mark at least one element that lies in the intersection of wild animals and carnivores. Call this element X. This means X is wild and X is a carnivore. Step 3: Since every wild animal is a lion, X is also a lion. So X is a lion and X is a carnivore. Therefore, there exists at least one lion that is a carnivore. This directly supports Conclusion II: some lions are carnivores. Step 4: Now look at Conclusion I: all carnivores are lions. The given information only tells us that some wild animals are carnivores and that all wild animals are lions. It does not say that all carnivores are wild. There may be carnivores that are not wild animals, such as domestic dogs or other animals outside the wild classification. These carnivores need not be lions. Step 5: Since it is easy to imagine carnivores outside the wild animal set, and nothing in the statements rules them out, we cannot say that every carnivore is a lion. Conclusion I does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider a concrete example. Suppose there are ten wild animals, all of which are lions. Among these ten, four are carnivores. Also suppose there exist other carnivores, such as domestic dogs, which are not wild animals and not lions in this imagined world. In this case, some wild animals are carnivores and all wild animals are lions, so both statements are satisfied. However, not all carnivores are lions, because the domestic dogs in the example are carnivores but not lions. Still, some lions are carnivores because those four wild carnivores are lions. This confirms that only Conclusion II is guaranteed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Any option that includes Conclusion I assumes more than what the statements provide about all carnivores. - The option that accepts both conclusions is incorrect because Conclusion I can fail in a valid scenario. - The option that rejects both conclusions ignores the direct deduction that at least one lion is a carnivore. - The cannot be determined option is not correct because we have a clear logical path supporting Conclusion II.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often confuse partial overlap with total inclusion and jump from some A are B to all B are A. Another common error is to treat the term wild as if it covers all carnivores, when the statements leave room for carnivores that are not wild. Always read each quantifier carefully and avoid reversing the direction of universal statements.

Final Answer:
Therefore, only the second conclusion is logically supported by the given statements. The correct answer is Only conclusion II follows.