Rewriting the assumptions in a more formal form:
Now let's look at the two possible conclusions.
Conclusion 2 is unclearly phrased. If it means that "the statement that all pencils are sharpeners is untrue", then it does follow from the assumptions, by the following argument.
Assume all pencils are sharpeners. Then by assumption 3, all pencils are erasers. So by assumption 1, some pens are erasers. This contradicts assumption 2.
If it means that "no pencils are sharpeners", then it doesn't necessarily follow, because some non-pen pencils could still be sharpeners without contradicting the three given assumptions.
As for conclusion 1, it too doesn't necessarily follow from the given assumptions. It would be fine for some eraser to be a pencil, just as long as it's not also a pen.
For an example of a scenario in which conclusion 1 and the second interpretation of conclusion 2 don't follow from the three assumptions, see the following Venn diagram:
As you can see, in this model some pencils are pens, no pens are erasers, and all sharpeners are erasers, but some pencils are sharpeners and some erasers are pens.