Statement:\n“There is no harm in providing a safety net for international players, but we need to pay more to our first-class players, especially as most of them are without jobs.” — BCCI treasurer.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Senior (international) players already get huge amounts and giving them more makes little sense.\nII. All first-class players need more motivation than international players.

Introduction / Context:
The treasurer’s statement contrasts two groups: international players (for whom a safety net is acceptable) and first-class players (for whom higher pay is urged, citing unemployment). The logical task is to decide whether the two strong conclusions necessarily follow from that statement alone.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The treasurer supports a safety provision for internationals.
• He advocates paying more to first-class players due to their economic vulnerability (“most … without jobs”).
• No explicit quantitative pay data for either group is provided.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I alleges that internationals already get “huge amounts,” making further support senseless. The statement never says they receive huge sums; it merely says safety support is “no harm,” shifting emphasis to first-class needs. Therefore I is an unsupported value claim. Conclusion II universalizes motivation needs (“all first-class players need more motivation than internationals”). The treasurer’s point is economic hardship, not comparative psychological motivation. Thus II is also not entailed.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the explicit claim: priority to first-class pay due to joblessness.2) Check for the words “huge amounts” or sufficiency judgments about internationals → absent → I does not follow.3) Look for any assertion about “motivation” or a universal quantifier “all” → absent → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
The treasurer could support modest safety nets for internationals and significant support for first-class players simultaneously; neither conclusion is logically forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” and “Either” would require text not present; “Only I/Only II” each add claims beyond the statement.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading moral judgments (“huge amounts,” “motivation”) into a primarily economic observation.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.