If some Wicks are Slicks and some Slicks are Snicks are some Wicks are definitely 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 ````````

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 `<-- Wicky Slicks````````````````````
`````````````````````````\````/```````Slicks could`````````````````````
`````No way to know--->`?`` 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.

First answer by Ainegue. Last edit by Ainegue. Contributor trust: 10 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 19 [recommend question].