In this statement and conclusion question about school children and handwriting, two statements are given about when children start using pens and why ink pens are prescribed. You must treat these statements as true and decide which conclusions logically follow. Statement I: Children start writing with a pen in sixth standard. Statement II: Ink pen is prescribed by most schools for children because it maintains handwriting and comfort. Conclusion I: Until fifth standard, children are completely unable to use a pen on their own. Conclusion II: Ink pens maintain a smooth flow of ink on paper and require less effort to write words.

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on reasoning from everyday school related statements about when children start using pens and why schools recommend ink pens. You must analyze which conclusions are justified by the information. One conclusion is about the capability of children up to fifth standard, and the other is about the benefits of ink pens for handwriting and comfort.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement I: Children start writing with a pen in sixth standard according to school practice.
- Statement II: Most schools prescribe ink pens for children because ink pens maintain handwriting quality and provide comfort to the child while writing.
- Conclusion I: Children up to fifth standard are completely unable to use a pen on their own.
- Conclusion II: Ink pens provide a proper flow of ink on paper and make it easier to put words on paper with less effort.

Concept / Approach:
We must identify what is explicitly stated versus what is an overreach. Starting to use a pen in sixth standard is a matter of school policy or practice and does not tell us that students earlier are incapable of using pens. On the other hand, the second statement directly links ink pens with better handwriting and comfort, which implies smooth flow and less effort. We base our evaluation of the conclusions strictly on these logical implications.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Interpret Statement I as a policy decision. Schools decide that children will officially start writing with pens in sixth standard. Step 2: This decision does not state anything about the physical or mental capability of children in fifth standard or lower. It only tells us what is allowed or prescribed at school. Step 3: Therefore, saying that children are completely unable to use pens before sixth standard, as in Conclusion I, is an unjustified extrapolation. Many children could possibly use pens earlier, but the school may not allow it. Step 4: Now interpret Statement II, which says ink pens are prescribed because they maintain handwriting and comfort. Comfort in writing usually comes from smooth ink flow and reduced pressure on the pen, which in turn makes writing easier. Step 5: Conclusion II rephrases this idea by stating that ink pens maintain a proper flow of ink and reduce effort to put words on paper. This is in line with the reason given in Statement II and can be accepted as a logical elaboration. Step 6: Thus, only Conclusion II is a valid interpretation that follows from the given statements, while Conclusion I introduces an absolute claim about inability that is not supported.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a school where pencils are used until fifth standard even though children are capable of using pens earlier. The policy exists for clarity or neatness, not because of inability. Such a scenario satisfies Statement I but makes Conclusion I false. However, in any scenario where ink pens are prescribed for handwriting and comfort, it remains reasonable that the ink flow is smoother and that writing requires less effort, so Conclusion II continues to hold as a logical restatement of the reason behind the prescription.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B says both conclusions follow, which is incorrect because Conclusion I clearly does not. Option C claims neither conclusion follows and ignores the link between Statement II and Conclusion II. Option D says only Conclusion I follows, which reverses the correct evaluation. Option E is not precise enough; the exact correct choice is that only Conclusion II follows, which is captured by Option A.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes read policy statements as if they were statements about ability. Just because a school permits or forbids something at a certain class level does not imply that students are incapable before that level. Another pitfall is to ignore the cause and effect relation in Statement II and treat it as a mere formality, when it actually explains why ink pens are preferred, which directly supports Conclusion II.

Final Answer:
The correct option is Only conclusion II follows, because the benefit of ink pens for smooth writing and comfort is directly supported by the given statements, while the claim about inability before sixth standard is not.