Consider the following phrase: Statement: All A are B. All B are D. No D is C.…

When two universal affirmative premises chain (All X are Y, All Y are Z), the result is All X are Z. If a further premise states No Z is W (Z and W are completely disjoint), then X, being entirely inside Z, cannot share any member with W either, i.e. No X is W follows validly. Once the derived relation between X and W is total exclusion (No X is W), any conclusion asserting some form of inclusion between them, whether All X are W or Some X are W, is invalid, since either would require at least one shared member, which total exclusion rules out.

1. Chain 'All A are B' and 'All B are D': every A is a B, and every B is a D, so every A is a D.

2. From 'No D is C', D and C share no members; they are completely disjoint sets.

3. Since every A lies inside D (step 1) and D lies entirely outside C (step 2), no A can be a C either; 'No A is C' follows validly.

4. Conclusion I ('All A are C') claims a full inclusion between A and C; this is ruled out since 'No A is C' means zero members are shared, not all.

5. Conclusion II ('Some A are C') claims even a partial overlap between A and C; this too is ruled out, since 'No A is C' rules out even one shared member.

6. Both conclusions fail, so neither conclusion follows from the given statements.

A quick Venn check confirms this: draw D as one circle; C lies entirely outside it (from 'No D is C'). A and B nest fully inside D (from the two 'All' premises), so A's circle sits completely inside D and completely outside C; the two circles (A and C) never touch, consistent with neither an 'all' nor a 'some' relation holding between them.