Given below are two premises and four conclusions are drawn from them (taken…

Concept: A direct syllogism (the Barbara pattern) draws a conclusion from a universal premise "All A are B" together with a particular case "x is A" to validly infer "x is B". Converting a universal affirmative statement -- turning "All A are B" into "All B are A" -- is not a valid inference, and a particular statement that directly contradicts a stated universal premise can never be validly drawn from it. Restating "x is A" in negative form as "x is not non-A" is always a valid immediate inference on its own.

Application:

1. Ram is emotional combines premise (i), that all religious persons are emotional, with premise (ii), that Ram is a religious person, through the Barbara pattern, so this conclusion follows directly from the two premises.

2. All emotional persons are religious reverses the subject and predicate of premise (i)'s universal statement; premise (i) alone licenses the direction from religious to emotional, not its reverse.

3. Ram is not a non-religious person restates premise (ii), that Ram is a religious person, in negative form; this immediate inference needs nothing beyond premise (ii) itself.

4. Some religious persons are not emotional asserts that some religious persons fall outside premise (i)'s claim that all of them are emotional, directly contradicting that universal premise.

Cross-check:

• The code combining all four conclusions would require both the reversed premise-(i) statement and the statement contradicting premise (i) to hold at the same time as the two conclusions that do follow from the premises -- a combination inconsistent with the premises.

• The code keeping only the direct syllogistic conclusion about Ram omits the equally valid negative restatement of premise (ii).

• The code pairing the direct syllogistic conclusion about Ram with the negative restatement of premise (ii) uses exactly the two conclusions that follow from the premises, leaving out the reversed statement and the contradicting one.

• The code pairing the reversed premise-(i) statement with the negative restatement of premise (ii) keeps one conclusion that the premises do not license alongside one that they do.

Result: Only the direct syllogistic conclusion that Ram is emotional and the negative restatement that Ram is not a non-religious person are validly drawn from the two premises, so the code "(a) and (c) only" -- pairing exactly these two conclusions -- is the correct answer.