Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, only II follows.
Since one premise is particular and the other premise is negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some desks are not red'. However, I is the converse of the first premise and thus it holds.
Since one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular and should not contain the middle term. So, II follows. I is the converse of II and so it also holds.
Since both the premises are universal and affirmative, the conclusion must be universal affirmative. However, conclusion II, being an A-type proposition, distributes the term 'cats'. Since the term 'cats' is distributed in II without being distributed in any of the premises, so conclusion II cannot follow. Thus, only I follows.
The first premise is A type and distributes the subject. So, the middle term 'waters' which forms its predicate, is not distributed. The second premise is I type and does not distribute either subject or predicate. So, the middle term 'waters' forming its subject is not distributed. Since the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises, no definite conclusion follows