Statement:\nThe U.S. Defense Secretary reiterated that the U.S. would continue to supply arms to Pakistan.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Pakistan is incapable of manufacturing arms.\nII. Continued arms supply will ensure peace in the region.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a policy reiteration about arms supply. It does not describe Pakistan’s industrial capability nor the strategic outcomes of the supply. Conclusions about capability or regional peace require additional premises not supplied here.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: continued U.S. arms supply to Pakistan.
• Absent: information on Pakistan’s domestic arms manufacturing capacity.
• Absent: evidence that supply ensures peace (could deter or escalate—undetermined).

Concept / Approach:
Supply from an external partner does not imply domestic incapacity (importing can be strategic or complementary). Promising peace as a direct outcome is a causal claim absent from the text. Therefore, neither conclusion follows strictly.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify that both conclusions add new propositions not in the statement.2) Without supporting premises, I and II cannot be derived.

Verification / Alternative check:
If Pakistan had strong manufacturing, imports could still occur; if peace worsened or improved, the original statement remains a policy declaration. Hence independence from the conclusions confirms “neither.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting I or II assumes facts not provided (capability or peace causality).

Common Pitfalls:
Equating procurement with incapability; presuming specific geopolitical outcomes from a single policy line.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.