Explanation
Let's check with Venn diagrams:
Statements:
1. All investigators are trained officers. → Investigators ⊂ Trained Officers
2. Some trained officers are lawyers. → Trained Officers ∩ Lawyers ≠ ∅
3. No lawyer is an accountant. → Lawyers ∩ Accountants = ∅
Conclusions:
I. Some investigators are lawyers.
We know investigators are trained officers, and some trained officers are lawyers. But we don't know if those "some" overlap with investigators.
→ Does not follow
II. No investigator is an accountant.
We know no lawyer is an accountant. But we don't know if investigators are lawyers. Investigators could still be accountants since we have no direct link between investigators and accountants.
→ Does not follow
III. Some trained officers are not accountants.
Some trained officers are lawyers. And no lawyer is an accountant.
So those trained officers who are lawyers cannot be accountants.
→ Follows
Answer: Only III follows
Last verified on 12-07-2026