Syllogism: Statements: No rice is food. No food is bread. Conclusions: (I) No…

Concept: When both given premises are universal negative (E-type) statements of the form "No A is B", sharing a common middle term, the standard syllogism rule (fallacy of exclusive premises) says that no valid conclusion can be drawn about the relationship between the two remaining end terms. Two negative premises never fix a link, positive or negative, between the outer terms -- at least one affirmative premise is required for that.

Application: Statement 1, "No rice is food", is an E-type premise between Rice and Food. Statement 2, "No food is bread", is an E-type premise between Food and Bread. Food is the common middle term, and it is excluded from both Rice and Bread. Both premises being negative means the rule above applies directly: no conclusion follows about how Rice and Bread relate to each other.

Cross-check: The premises only fix how Rice and Bread each relate to Food; they place no direct restriction between Rice and Bread themselves. For instance, let Food = {milk, vegetables}, and suppose one item, "rice-flour bread", belongs to both the Rice category and the Bread category (it is a rice-based bread), while staying fully outside Food. This single item keeps both "No rice is food" and "No food is bread" true, yet it directly falsifies both "No bread is rice" and "No rice is bread" at once (since that one item is both bread and rice). Because a scenario consistent with both premises can make the conclusions false, the conclusions are not a guaranteed consequence of the premises.

Result: Since neither "No bread is rice" nor "No rice is bread" is guaranteed by the two negative premises, neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows.