Statements: I. The Constitution assures fundamental rights. II. Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution. Conclusions: I. Parliament included fundamental rights in the Constitution. II. Parliament did not assure the fundamental rights. Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:We are presented with two independent premises—one about what the Constitution guarantees, another about Parliament’s amending power. The task is to test two conclusions about Parliament’s role regarding fundamental rights.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise I: The Constitution (as a document) assures fundamental rights.
• Premise II: Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution.
• No premise mentions who originally included those rights, nor whether Parliament “assured” them.

Concept / Approach:From “X assures Y” we cannot infer “Agent Z assured Y,” unless Z is explicitly linked to that assurance. From “Z can amend X,” we cannot infer that Z created Y within X. The conclusions attempt to attribute authorship and assurance to Parliament without supporting premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Consider two models—(a) Parliament authored the rights; (b) a Constituent Assembly authored them. Both models satisfy the premises; therefore, neither I nor II is compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:Equating “power to amend” with “authorship” or “assurance”; reading historical facts into a purely logical exercise.

Final Answer:Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.