Given the set of premises, identify the conclusion that creates a valid syllogism. Using an Euler diagram is recommended. All aquatic animals have some dependence on water. Some aquatic animals are mammals. What is the valid conclusion? No mammals have a dependence on water. All animals with a dependence on water are mammals. All animals with a dependence on water are aquatic. some animals with a dependence on water are mammals.

To create a valid syllogism, let’s break down the premises. The first states that all aquatic animals have some dependence on water, implying that if an animal is aquatic, it relies on water. The second indicates that some aquatic animals are mammals, meaning there are mammals that fall into the category of aquatic animals. Given this logic, the conclusion "some animals with a dependence on water are mammals" accurately reflects the relationship by inferring that the mammals we identified within the aquatic category also depend on water. Visualizing this with an Euler diagram would help show the overlapping relationships. You'd have a circle for aquatic animals and a smaller section overlapping for mammals to illustrate that there are indeed some mammals within the broader category of aquatic animals that depend on water. So, there you have it! The valid conclusion is: **some animals with a dependence on water are mammals.**