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. All tables are charts.
II. Some charts are graphs.
III. Some graphs are pies.

Conclusions:
I. No table is a graph.
II. Some pies are charts.

Let's analyze the statements with possible Venn structures:
Statement I: All tables are charts. (Tables circle is entirely inside Charts)

Statement II: Some charts are graphs. (Charts circle overlaps with Graphs)

Statement III: Some graphs are pies. (Graphs circle overlaps with Pies)

Now let's verify the conclusions:

Conclusion I: No table is a graph.
While the standard diagram might show Tables and Graphs separate, it is entirely possible for the Graphs circle to overlap with Tables while satisfying "Some charts are graphs". Since it's a negative definite conclusion ("No table is..."), it must hold true in all possibilities to be valid. It does not. Thus, Conclusion I does not follow.

Conclusion II: Some pies are charts.
Pies overlap with Graphs, and Graphs overlap with Charts, but there is no direct relationship specified linking Pies and Charts. They may or may not overlap. Thus, Conclusion II does not logically follow.

Since neither conclusion follows, the answer is option B.