If all knowledge is power, all power is captured, all captured is jailed and some jailed is freed, then

Premises form a chain: knowledge ⊆ power ⊆ captured ⊆ jailed, plus 'Some jailed is freed.' Testing the options by strict categorical logic: 'Some knowledge is freed' (marked correct) does NOT follow — the freed portion of 'jailed' need not intersect the 'knowledge' subset; assuming it does is the fallacy of illicit overlap. 'All knowledge is freed' clearly fails. 'Some freed is captured' also fails, since the freed things lie in 'jailed' but not necessarily in its subset 'captured.' The only conclusion logically guaranteed is 'Some freed is jailed' (id 489402): this is the valid converse of the given premise 'Some jailed is freed' (conversion of an I-proposition, 'Some A is B' ⇔ 'Some B is A', is always valid). Hence the strictly correct answer is 'Some freed is jailed,' not the test-bank-conventional 'Some knowledge is freed.'

• Thanks
• Wrong explanation