Statement:\n“Any young man who makes dowry a condition for marriage discredits himself and dishonors womanhood.”\n\nConclusions:\nI. Those who take dowry in marriage should be condemned by society.\nII. Those who do not take dowry in marriage respect womanhood.\n\nWhich conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The statement morally condemns the act of demanding dowry as a condition for marriage, calling it dishonorable. We must test which societal or converse claims necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Moral judgment against dowry-demanders.
• No explicit prescription for societal penalties.
• No converse praise for non-dowry cases is stated.

Concept / Approach:
From “X is dishonorable,” we do not automatically derive “society should condemn X” (policy) or “not-X implies honor” (converse).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Logical inference requires necessity, not preferred ethics.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They import prescriptions or converses.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing moral judgment with policy prescription; affirming the converse.

Final Answer:
If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.