Statement: A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one of the Vedas.\nConclusions:\nI) Any person who can recite the Vedas is a Brahmin.\nII) Reciting the Vedas is a Brahmin’s obligation.

Introduction / Context:
The statement prescribes an expectation for Brahmin priests: the ability to recite at least one Veda. We must test two conclusions—one is a converse generalization, the other restates the obligation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Expectation: “A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one Veda.”
• No claim equates all Veda-reciters with being Brahmins.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion II paraphrases the obligation: for Brahmin priests, reciting (at least one Veda) is expected—this follows. Conclusion I wrongly converts “Brahmin priest → can recite” into “can recite → Brahmin,” which is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify directionality: the rule applies to Brahmin priests, not all Veda-reciters.2) Conclude II is supported; I is an invalid converse.

Verification / Alternative check:
Non-Brahmins (scholars) could recite the Vedas; thus I fails.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting I adds a universal identification never made; “neither” ignores the explicit obligation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing an obligation for a group with an identity rule for all who meet the skill.

Final Answer:
Conclusion II follows.