Statement:\nBank strikes have become endemic, and time and again the hardships to the public and business community have been narrated ad nauseam.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Bank employees are not getting proper salaries.\nII. Banks come under Essential Services.

Introduction / Context:
The premise speaks to frequency of bank strikes and the resulting hardships. It does not, however, state the causes of strikes nor the statutory classification of banks vis-à-vis essential services. We must avoid inserting assumptions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Frequent strikes in the banking sector.
• Hardships to public and businesses are well documented.
• No information is given about pay levels or legal categorization.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I posits salary inadequacy as the reason for strikes; while remuneration can be a cause in some cases, the statement does not attribute cause. Conclusion II claims banks fall under “Essential Services”; the statement makes no legal assertion of that kind. Thus neither conclusion is a necessary inference from the premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify what is said: frequency and hardship.2) Identify what is not said: reasons (e.g., pay), legal status → neither I nor II follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
If strikes were due to non-pay issues (work conditions, policy), I would be false; if banks are not legally classed as essential in a given jurisdiction, II would be false—yet the premise would still hold.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Both” assume facts not in evidence. “Only I/Only II” likewise add unstated reasons or legal designations.

Common Pitfalls:
Inferring causation or legal classifications from mere frequency and impact.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.