Statement:\nThe Chief Minister emphasized that the government will try its best for the development of farmers and the rural poor.\n\nConclusions:\nI. The former government had not tried seriously for the development of these groups.\nII. This government will not try seriously for the development of the urban poor.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a forward-looking policy emphasis about farmers and the rural poor. It says nothing explicit about past governments, nor does it compare priorities between rural and urban poor for the current government. The task is to avoid reading extra implications not present in the text.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Present government: will “try its best” for farmers and rural poor.
• No evaluative statement about former governments.
• No statement denying help to the urban poor.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I imputes failure to the former government, a historical claim absent from the statement. Conclusion II asserts a negative commitment toward the urban poor, which is also not stated; prioritization of one group does not logically imply neglect of another unless explicitly stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify scope: current intent regarding rural beneficiaries.2) There is no premise about past performance → I does not follow.3) There is no premise about urban policy → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if the government also plans robust urban programs, the statement would remain true; conversely, even if former governments did well, the statement’s promise stands. Hence neither conclusion is entailed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that accepts I or II imports unstated comparisons or exclusions.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming exclusivity (support for rural implies no urban support) or making historical inferences without text support.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.