Statement:\n“The best evidence of India’s glorious past is the growing popularity of Ayurvedic medicines in the West.”\nConclusions:\nI. Ayurvedic medicines are not popular in India.\nII. Allopathic medicines are more popular in India.

Introduction / Context:
The premise cites Western popularity of Ayurveda as evidence of India’s glorious past. It makes a comparative cultural point, not a domestic market analysis. We must test conclusions about popularity within India and relative preference over allopathy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ayurveda’s popularity is growing in the West.
• This is being offered as proof of India’s historic excellence.
• No domestic popularity data or comparisons with allopathy are provided.

Concept / Approach:
From “Ayurveda is getting popular in the West,” we cannot infer “Ayurveda is not popular in India,” nor that “Allopathy is more popular in India.” Both are new claims requiring separate evidence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: The statement is silent on Indian popularity; asserting “not popular in India” is unjustified → does not follow.2) II: No comparison is drawn between Ayurveda and allopathy in India → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If comparative Indian market shares had been discussed, II might be evaluable. They are not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option admitting I or II imports unstated market facts.

Common Pitfalls:
Inferring domestic conclusions from international trends; assuming a zero-sum relation with allopathy.

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows