Statement:\nTo cultivate interest in reading, the school has made it compulsory (from June 1996) for each student to read two books per week and submit a weekly report.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Interest in reading can be created by force.\nII. Some students will eventually develop an interest in reading.\n\nWhich option is correct?

Introduction / Context:
The school introduces a compulsory reading program to cultivate interest. We must judge what necessarily follows regarding efficacy and outcomes, while avoiding absolute claims about “force.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Mandate two books per week plus a report.
• Stated aim: cultivate interest in reading.
• No explicit causal proof, but it is reasonable to infer that at least some students will respond positively over time.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“created by force”) makes a universal causal claim about “force” producing interest, which the premise does not establish. Conclusion II is a weaker existential claim: in large student populations, structured exposure commonly leads at least some students to develop interest, aligning with the policy’s intention.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider heterogeneous student responses: some indifferent, some resistant, some engaged. The existence of at least one engaged subgroup is highly plausible and requires no overreach.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Asserting I alone or both I & II turns a policy aim into a universal causal truth, which is not given.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating “mandatory” with “effective for all”; demanding absolute proof instead of recognising a minimal existential outcome.

Final Answer:
If only Conclusion II follows.