Statements: Some stars are planets. Some planets are galaxies. Some galaxies are suns. Conclusions I: All suns being galaxies is a possibility. Conclusion II: Some galaxies are stars.

Question

Accepted Answer

Step-by-step reasoning:

1. Let S = stars, P = planets, G = galaxies, Su = suns. The statements are:
   - Some S are P: $\exists x\,(S(x)\land P(x))$.
   - Some P are G: $\exists x\,(P(x)\land G(x))$.
   - Some G are Su: $\exists x\,(G(x)\land Su(x))$.

2. Conclusion I: “All suns being galaxies is a possibility” means it is consistent with the given statements that $Su\subseteq G$ (i.e. every sun is a galaxy). The premises do not contradict $Su\subseteq G$ — in fact one premise already states $\exists x\,(G(x)\land Su(x))$, so having all suns be galaxies is compatible with the information given. Therefore conclusion I is possible (it follows as a valid possibility).

3. Conclusion II: “Some galaxies are stars” asserts $\exists x\,(G(x)\land S(x))$ must hold. From the premises we only have chains of some-overlaps (some S are P, some P are G) but no necessary overlap between S and G. We can construct a model satisfying all premises with disjoint S and G except for the required overlaps (e.g. one element in S\cap P, a different one in P\cap G, and a different one in G\cap Su). In that model no galaxy is a star, so conclusion II does not necessarily follow.

4. Therefore only conclusion I follows and conclusion II does not.

FINAL_ANSWER: e

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer