Directions (86-89): In each of the questions below some statements are given followed by two conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:

All machine is ATM
Only a few rupees is ATM
Some coin is rupees
Conclusions:
I. Some coin is not machine
II. All machine being rupees is a possibility

Let us analyze the given statements and conclusions step-by-step using Syllogism rules and Venn diagrams.

Given Statements:
1. All machine is ATM: This means the entire set of "machine" is completely inside the set of "ATM".
2. Only a few rupees is ATM: This is a dual statement containing two parts: "Some rupees is ATM" AND "Some rupees is not ATM".
3. Some coin is rupees: This means there is a common intersection between the set of "coin" and the set of "rupees".

Analysis of Conclusions:

Conclusion I: Some coin is not machine
Let us check if this is definitely true. There is no negative relation specified between "coin" and "machine". We can easily draw a possible Venn diagram where all "coins" are placed inside "machine" (since "coin" overlaps with "rupees", and "rupees" can overlap with "ATM" and "machine"). Since a configuration exists where all "coin" can be "machine", the conclusion "Some coin is not machine" is not definitely true in all scenarios. Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.

Conclusion II: All machine being rupees is a possibility
Let us check if it is possible for all "machine" to be "rupees". The statement "Only a few rupees is ATM" restricts some "rupees" from going inside "ATM", but it does not prevent "ATM" (or parts of "ATM" like "machine") from going completely inside "rupees". We can draw a possible diagram where the entire set of "machine" is inside "rupees", which in turn is partially inside "ATM" (satisfying "Only a few rupees is ATM"). Since this possibility exists without violating any statements, Conclusion II follows.

Thus, only conclusion II follows. (Note: The provided answer key indicating both conclusions follow is logically incorrect under standard syllogism rules because there is no statement restricting "coin" from being "machine" to make "Some coin is not machine" definitely true. However, following standard logical analysis, the correct option is "If only conclusion II follow".)