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:I. No fact is a truth.II. No truth is a detail.III. Some details are points. Conclusions:I. Some points are facts.II. No point is a truth.

Let's analyze the statements with standard sets/Venn logic: No fact is a truth: The sets of 'fact' and 'truth' have zero overlap.No truth is a detail: The sets of 'truth' and 'detail' have zero overlap.Some details are points: There is an overlapping region between 'detail' and 'point'.Now evaluate the conclusions:Conclusion I: Some points are facts. There is no direct link or mandatory overlap specified between 'points' and 'facts'. Thus, this does not logically follow.Conclusion II: No point is a truth. While no truth is a detail, a 'point' that is outside the 'detail' set could potentially overlap with 'truth'. Since it's not strictly forbidden by the rules, we cannot conclude that no point is a truth. Thus, this does not definitively follow.Therefore, neither conclusion I nor II follows.