In each question below, some statements are given followed by some conclusions. You have to assume everything in the statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts. Now, decide which of the two given conclusions logically follow from the statements, disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
Only travel are planet.
Some crow are travel.
All crow are silver.
Conclusions:
I. Some planet being silver is a possibility.
II. All travel can never be crow.

To determine which of the conclusions logically follow from the given statements, we can analyze them step-by-step using logical deductions and Venn diagrams.

Let's first understand the meaning of the statements:
1. "Only travel are planet":
In syllogisms, a statement of the form "Only A are B" is equivalent to "All B are A", with a crucial restriction: elements of B (planet) cannot belong to any category other than A (travel). Therefore, this translates to "All planet are travel", and it also implies that "No planet can be anything else (such as crow or silver)".

2. "Some crow are travel":
This means there is an intersection between the set of "crow" and the set of "travel".

3. "All crow are silver":
The entire set of "crow" is contained within the set of "silver".

Now, let's evaluate each conclusion based on these rules:

Conclusion I: Some planet being silver is a possibility.
From the first statement, "Only travel are planet", we established that planets can only belong to travel and cannot overlap with any other set. Thus, a planet can never be silver. Because it is impossible for any planet to be silver, the possibility claim "Some planet being silver is a possibility" is false.
Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.

Conclusion II: All travel can never be crow.
Let's see if it is possible for all "travel" to be "crow".
If all "travel" were "crow", then since all "planet" are "travel", all "planet" would also have to be "crow".
However, as established by the statement "Only travel are planet", planets cannot belong to any set other than "travel". Specifically, planets cannot be "crow".
Since the set "planet" exists within "travel" and cannot overlap with "crow", the entire set of "travel" can never be contained within "crow".
Therefore, the statement "All travel can never be crow" is logically true.
Thus, Conclusion II follows.

In conclusion, only Conclusion II follows from the given statements.