All cars have wheels. Some vehicles have wings. Therefore, some cars have what?

In categorical logic, the standard convention used for reasoning/syllogism questions of this kind treats a universal affirmative statement of the form "All A are B" as carrying existential import — that is, it assumes the category A is non-empty. Under that convention, "All A are B" entails the particular affirmative "Some A are B", because if every member of the (non-empty) category A belongs to B, then at least some members of A must belong to B.

Here, the first premise, "All cars have wheels," is a universal statement about cars (a real, non-empty category). By the rule above, it follows directly that "some cars have wheels." The second premise, "Some vehicles have wings," talks about vehicles in general, not specifically about cars, so it does not by itself support any conclusion about cars and can be set aside for this question.

• Wings — only the "some vehicles have wings" premise mentions wings, and it is never restricted to cars, so no valid link from cars to wings can be drawn.

• Windows — neither premise mentions windows at all, so nothing about windows can be concluded regarding cars.

• Doors — neither premise mentions doors at all, so nothing about doors can be concluded regarding cars.

Only "wheels" follows validly from the premises, so the conclusion is that some cars have wheels.