Logical reasoning — Workplace disclosure directive: Employees resist declaring income and assets; assess which conclusion about undisclosed income or sequencing of senior officers’ disclosure logically follows

Given data

• Statement: A government-run company asked employees to declare income and assets; employees’ union strongly resisted and no employee will declare.
• Conclusions to test:
  • I: Employees do not have any undisclosed income beyond salary.
  • II: The union wants all senior officers to declare first.

Concept/Approach

The statement reports resistance but does not state reasons or conditions. Hence we cannot infer absence of undisclosed income (I) or a conditional demand about seniors (II).

Step-by-Step reasoning
1) I does not follow: resistance could arise for many reasons (privacy, principle, distrust). Claiming “no undisclosed income” is not warranted.2) II does not follow: there is no mention of any “officers-first” condition.

Verification/Alternative

Even if some employees are fully compliant in spirit, the observed blanket resistance gives no detail that supports either conclusion.

Common pitfalls

• Projecting motivations or conditions not mentioned in the statement.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.