Statement:\nThe Government has decided to ban all naxalite organisations operating in various parts of the country.\nConclusions:\nI. The Government is concerned about the nation’s internal security.\nII. Naxalite groups have been found indulging in disruptive activities.

Introduction / Context:
Banning organisations is an extreme administrative/legal measure, typically grounded in security concerns. The logical task is to test which conclusions necessarily follow from the mere announcement of a ban.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A blanket ban on naxalite organisations across several regions.
• No explicit statutory reasoning or evidence is quoted in the statement.

Concept / Approach:
From a governmental decision to ban, it is safe to infer the Government’s concern for internal security (I). However, concluding the exact behaviour of all such groups (II) requires specifics not provided in the statement: the ban could be precautionary or evidence-based, but the latter is not explicitly stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) “Ban” → a strong internal security posture is implicitly indicated → I follows.2) II asserts that the groups “have been found” indulging in disruption. The statement does not present that finding as a premise; it only announces a ban.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said, “owing to their disruptive acts, the Government bans…,” II would follow. Lacking that clause, II is not compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: over-reads. Either I or II: too permissive. Neither: wrong because the security concern (I) necessarily underlies a ban of this nature.

Common Pitfalls:
Injecting general knowledge about naxalism instead of sticking to the text.

Final Answer:
if only conclusion I follows