Statements : I. All graduates are chairs. II. All chairs are tabes. Inferences : A. All graduates are tables.                    B. All tables are graduates. Codes

Read the statements as a chain. Statement I says every graduate is a chair, and statement II says every chair is a table (the word 'tabes' is evidently a typo for 'tables'). Put them together and every graduate is a table. So Inference A follows.

Inference B reverses the direction: all tables are graduates. Statement II only tells us that chairs fall inside the class of tables, not the other way round. A table could be a desk or a dining table with no link to graduates. Turning 'All X are Y' into 'All Y are X' is the classic fallacy of illicit conversion, so B does not follow.

Hence only inference A follows, which is option A. Option C fails because it accepts B. Option D fails because it rejects A, which is a valid transitive conclusion.

Core concept: syllogism with universal affirmative premises, where the middle term (chairs) links the other two. Conclusions hold only in the direction the premises allow. This same habit of checking direction is useful for CSAT and for structuring arguments in Mains essays.

Trap: candidates often accept B because the Venn-style picture looks symmetrical. Universal affirmatives never convert, so always check the direction of the arrow.