Statement — Cases of bride-burning for dowry are not uncommon.\nQuestion — Which conclusion(s) necessarily follow strictly from this statement?

Introduction / Context:
The stem asserts frequency (“not uncommon”) of a harmful practice. Two conclusions try to explain why the practice persists: (I) despite an anti-dowry law; (II) punishments are not harsh enough. We must test necessity, not plausibility.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Only the prevalence fact is given.
• No mention of any specific law or the severity/effectiveness of penalties.

Concept / Approach:
Necessary inference must come directly from the stem. Explanations invoking legal context or punishment severity introduce new information that could be true or false independently of the prevalence statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
It is possible (consistent with the stem) that no law exists, or that law exists but the persistence is due to poor enforcement, cultural factors, fear of reporting, etc. These alternative worlds prove that neither I nor II is forced by the stem.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing common knowledge or moral intuition with strict logical entailment.

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows