Statements : A) All players are smokers. B) Some smokers are wine-addicts. Inferences : I. All smokers are players. II. Some wine-addicts are smokers. Codes

The correct answer is B, because only Conclusion II follows.

Conclusion I (All smokers are players) does not follow. The first statement runs one way only: every player is a smoker. That makes players a subset of smokers. The smokers outside that subset may have nothing to do with games, so reversing the relationship is an illegal conversion. "All players are smokers" cannot be turned into "All smokers are players."

Conclusion II (Some wine-addicts are smokers) follows. The second statement, "Some smokers are wine-addicts," is a particular affirmative proposition. Particular affirmatives convert simply: if some smokers are wine-addicts, then some wine-addicts are smokers. The overlap is the same in both directions.

Core concept: conversion rules in syllogistic and Venn-diagram reasoning. A universal affirmative converts only partially (All A are B gives Some B are A), and a particular affirmative converts fully. Aspirants often apply the wrong rule to the wrong proposition. This kind of disciplined reasoning carries into Mains essays and case studies, where you must separate what the evidence actually licenses from what merely sounds plausible.

Trap: Assuming that because all players are smokers, the two sets must be equal, and accepting Conclusion I.