Statements:\nI. For protection of Indian museums, the Central Government is responsible.\nII. Victoria Memorial Hall is a national property.\n\nConclusions:\nI. “India museum” is national property.\nII. Historical property of the nation is protected by the Central Government.\n\nWhich conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the statements?

Introduction / Context:
This is a classical “statements and conclusions” test. We are given two independent premises about responsibility for protecting Indian museums and about the status of a specific monument (Victoria Memorial Hall) being national property. We must determine which conclusions necessarily and unambiguously follow from those premises alone, without adding external facts or world knowledge.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: The Central Government is responsible for the protection of Indian museums.
• Statement II: Victoria Memorial Hall is national property.
• No other categories (e.g., “historical property” in general) are mentioned in Statement I.
• No claim is made about the “India museum” (likely intended “Indian Museum”) being national property.

Concept / Approach:
Only conclusions that are a necessary logical consequence of the premises can be accepted. Any enlargement of scope (e.g., from “museums” to all “historical property”) or any new attribution (e.g., “X is national property”) not stated or entailed must be rejected.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If we reframe: Premise A = “Central protects museums” and Premise B = “Victoria Memorial is national property.” Neither premise equates “national property” with “museum,” nor generalises protection to all historical properties. No necessary link supports the conclusions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Generalising beyond the stated category; reading real-world facts into the logical task; assuming “national property ⇒ under Central protection” without being stated.

Final Answer:
Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.