Statements: Some questions are answers. Some answers are writers. All the…

Concept: A particular statement of the form "Some A are B" can always be reversed to "Some B are A" (simple conversion). Two premises yield a valid conclusion only when they share a common term and at least one premise is universal (an "All" statement); if one premise is particular and the other universal, the conclusion is particular, in the direction fixed by the universal one's subject/predicate placement. Two particular ("Some") premises alone never combine into any conclusion, and a particular premise can never be strengthened into a universal conclusion.

Application: Let Q = questions, A = answers, W = writers, P = poets. The premises are: Some Q are A (particular); Some A are W (particular); All W are P (universal). Converting the second premise directly gives "Some W are A", i.e. some writers are answers -- this is exactly conclusion I, so I holds. Next, combine the second premise (Some A are W, particular) with the third (All W are P, universal) through the common term W: since W is distributed in "All W are P", this pair validly yields the particular conclusion "Some A are P" (some answers are poets), which converts to "Some P are A" -- some poets are answers -- exactly conclusion IV, so IV holds. For conclusion II (poets and questions), the only route runs through the newly derived "Some A are P" together with the first premise "Some Q are A" -- but both are particular, and two particular premises never combine, so II does not follow. For conclusion III ("All questions are poets"), the premise linking questions to answers is only particular (Some Q are A), so no universal statement about all questions can ever be drawn from it -- III does not follow.

Cross-check: Take a concrete set that satisfies every premise: Questions = {a, b}, Answers = {a, c}, Writers = {c, d}, Poets = {c, d, e}. All writers (c, d) are poets -- premise 3 holds. c is both an answer and a writer -- premise 2 holds. a is both a question and an answer -- premise 1 holds. Now check the conclusions on this same set: c is a writer and an answer, so I holds; c is a poet and an answer, so IV holds; no poet (c, d, e) is a question (a, b) in this set, so II fails here and cannot be guaranteed; b is a question but nothing forces b to be a poet, so III also fails here. This single set that obeys all three premises breaks II and III while confirming I and IV, matching the derivation.

Result: Only conclusions I and IV follow.