Find which conclusion is right or which one is wrong Statement
     1.all door is window.
     2.all table is window.
     3.some table is chair.
Conclusion
  1.no door is table
  2. Some window being chair is possibility.
3. Some window are door.
Kindly give me  solution of this above syllogism
 A: It is consistent with your premises that everything is simultaneously a door, a window, a table, and a chair (and there exists something in the first place).
This ought to tell you the correct resolution of (1) and (2).
The status of (3) depends on which logical framework you're working with. In classical (Aristotelian) syllogistic logic, it is held that stating "all doors are windows" includes a claim that there are doors in the first place. And one of those doors will, therefore, be a window that is a door.
On the other hand, modern mathematical logic uses the words in a different way. For us, "all A are B" means the same as "there is nothing that is A but is not B", and this can perfectly well be true because there are no As at all -- a so-called "vacuous truth".
Under this interpretation, (3) is not implied by the premises -- for example we could be in a world where there exists only one thing, and that thing is a table and a chair and a window (all at once) but is not a door.
A: First, these statements are of course very confusing, and not just because they are ungrammatical: doors being windows?  Tables being windows?  But: given that this is logic, you should just ignore your knowledge about our particular world where doors and tables are not windows. Indeed, in logic we can assume that pigs fly and that $1+1=3$. So: just try to work with the logical parts of te statements, e.g. If it says 'some table is chair', then just say tha there issome object that is both a 'chair' and a 'table'. If that is still too hard for you to do, then just replac the labels with meaningess letters, e.g. If 'chair' becomes C and 'table' becomes T, then you can say that premis 3 says that there is somethig that is both a C and a T.
Second, I can't tell you which conclusion is 'wrong', but I can tell you which conclusion validly follows from the premises (which I assume is what the question you got is really asking):


*

*'No door is table'. This does not follow from the premises. Assume there are no doors, but there is something that is a table, chair, and window, and that there are no other objects. Then all three premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

*'Some window being chair is possibility'. Yes, given the premises it is indeed possible for some window being a chair. Assume that there is one object that is a door, window, chair, and table, and that there are no other objects. Then the premises are all true and since there is now a window that is chair, it is indeed pssible for a widnow to be a chair.

*'Some window are door'. This does not follow from the premises. Suppose (like for 1) that there are no doors, but there is something that is a table, chair, and window, and no other objects. Then all premises are true, but the conclusion is false.
