Statement — A constitutional amendment (passed last month) prohibits employing child labour in any organization.\nQuestion — Which conclusion necessarily follows?

Introduction / Context:
A constitutional amendment has legal force. The question asks what must follow from such a change, distinguishing between legal compliance and broader social outcomes like schooling participation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Amendment: employing child labour (below the threshold, typically 14 years) is prohibited.
• Organizations and employees must comply with constitutional provisions.
• No immediate guarantee is given about school enrollment behavior.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I — “Employees must now abide by this amendment” — follows as a matter of legal obligation. Conclusion II — “Children below 14 will now engage in education” — is aspirational and may require implementation capacity, access, and enforcement; it is not a necessary consequence of the amendment text alone.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
One can imagine a locality with inadequate schools; the amendment still binds employers, but II may not yet hold. Thus only I must follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a legal prohibition with a guaranteed behavioral outcome across society.

Final Answer:
if only Conclusions I follows