In this question, three statements are given, followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusions logically follows/follow from the statements.
Statements:

Some tables are chairs.

Some chairs are beds.

All beds are wardrobes.

Conclusions:
I. No table is a wardrobe.
II. All tables are wardrobes.

Based on the given statements, we can trace the relations using a Venn diagram:
"Some tables are chairs" means there is an intersection between Tables and Chairs.

"Some chairs are beds" means there is an intersection between Chairs and Beds.

"All beds are wardrobes" means the entire circle of Beds lies inside Wardrobes.

Let's analyze the conclusions:

Conclusion I: "No table is a wardrobe." → This is a negative conclusion. Since all statements are affirmative, no definite negative conclusion can be drawn between tables and wardrobes. It is possible that some tables are wardrobes, so this does not definitely follow.

Conclusion II: "All tables are wardrobes." → There is no direct statement or logical compulsion that requires all tables to be wardrobes. Thus, this does not follow.

Since neither conclusion is definitely true, Neither conclusion I nor II follows.