NO, some Wicks are not definitly Snicks. .
Heres a diagram - you're supposed to think of it as A is a type of B, and B is a type of C, etc: `Snicks```Other ` ````\```
…/`````` `?`` Slicks`````` ``\``/````````` `Wicks```````` ` So: Are some Wicks a type of Snick? Upon first impression, you can see that since some Wicks are a type of Slick, and some Slicks are a type of Snick, then the statement could be True. ` Snicks ```Other ` ````\``` /`````` `?`` Slicks `````` ``\``/````````` ` Wicks ```````` ` .
Or even this thought: Examining the rest of the Wicks. It could be possible, that the other Wicks that are not Slicks, are directly a type of Snick. Like this: ` Snicks ``Other ` `` | `` \```/ ````` `` | `` Slicks ````` `` | ```/ ```````` ` Wicks ```````` .
Why Those Reasonings are INCORRECT .
The Wicks that are Slicks may all be in the group of Slicks that are NOT Snicks. Only some Slicks are Snicks. The Wicks could be in the group of Slicks that are not Snicks, but Other! The riddle says definitely Snicks. The same bit of the riddle ruins the 2nd explanation as well! - We don't know definitely that the Wicks are directly connected to the Snicks. Wicks could be something else, and the Wicky Slicks could all be Other: .
``````````````````````Snicks`` Other `` ? `` Slicks ````````could all``````````````````````` ```````what this is. ````` \ ``` / ```````````be Other`````````````````````` `````````````````````` Wicks ``````````````````````````````````````````.
Because there is no proof that Wicks are in the group of Slicks that are not in the Other group, and because we can't definitely know that the Wicks are directly connected to the Snicks, the statement is FALSE - No, some Wicks are not definitely Snicks. (MORE) 
