Statements: No sea is a sky. Some skies are kites. All kites are balloons. Conclusion I: Some balloons are seas. Conclusion II: All balloons being skies is a possibility.

Question

Accepted Answer

Step 1 — Translate statements into set relations:

- "No sea is a sky": $Sea\cap Sky=\emptyset$. 
- "Some skies are kites": $Sky\cap Kite
eq\emptyset$. 
- "All kites are balloons": $Kite\subseteq Balloon$.

Step 2 — Immediate deduction:

- From $Sky\cap Kite
eq\emptyset$ and $Kite\subseteq Balloon$ we get $Sky\cap Balloon
eq\emptyset$ (i.e., some skies are balloons).

Step 3 — Evaluate Conclusion I ("Some balloons are seas"):

- The premises provide no positive link between $Sea$ and $Balloon$; they only state $Sea\cap Sky=\emptyset$. That prohibits seas from being skies but does not force or guarantee any overlap between $Sea$ and $Balloon$. Therefore the existential claim "Some balloons are seas" is not logically entailed by the premises (it may be true in some models and false in others). Conclusion I does not follow.

Step 4 — Evaluate Conclusion II ("All balloons being skies is a possibility"):

- Asking whether this is possible means checking consistency with the premises. Suppose $Balloon\subseteq Sky$. Then since $Kite\subseteq Balloon$, we get $Kite\subseteq Sky$, which is consistent with "Some skies are kites." Also $Sea\cap Sky=\emptyset$ would then imply $Sea\cap Balloon=\emptyset$, which is not contradicted by any premise. No premise forbids all balloons being skies, so this scenario is consistent with the statements. Thus Conclusion II (that it is possible all balloons are skies) follows.

Conclusion: Only conclusion II follows.

FINAL_ANSWER: c

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer