Statement:\nAs India’s push for faster development gains momentum, the government finds itself handicapped by a serious dearth of data-based knowledge and analysis, which should form the basis of decisions and policy-making.\nConclusions:\nI. The government began development work without collecting necessary data.\nII. Employees of the statistical department are corrupt.

Introduction / Context:
The statement laments a shortage of data-driven knowledge and analysis to underpin decisions. It does not specify why the shortage exists, who is at fault, or whether development actions already commenced absent data.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There is a “serious dearth” of data-based inputs for policy.
• No timeline is provided about when development actions started relative to data collection.
• No accusation is made against statistical employees or any department.

Concept / Approach:
To follow, a conclusion must be a necessary implication. Possibilities include lack of infrastructure, fragmented data, capacity issues, or delayed pipelines. None of these specifically entails that work began without data or that corruption is the cause.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: The statement says the government “finds itself handicapped,” not that it knowingly ignored data or started without any data. It is compatible with having some data but insufficient analysis → does not follow.2) II: Corruption is not mentioned. The shortage could be due to resourcing, standards, siloing, or skills gaps → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Only an explicit claim that actions began despite zero data (I) or that corruption is the cause (II) would justify these. Neither appears.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting I/II imports speculative blame rather than necessary inference from the text.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “dearth” with “none”; assuming malfeasance when constraints might be structural.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows