Statement — In India, many women perceive dowry as the only share they will receive from their parental property; what they object to are the extortionist demands.\nConclusions:\nI. Indian women do not have any share in their parental property.\nII. Extortionist demands by the bridegroom’s side are a common practice in Indian society.

Introduction / Context:
Statement–Conclusion questions test whether a conclusion follows strictly from what is stated, without importing outside facts or popular opinions. Here, the statement highlights two things: (1) many women view dowry as their only “share” from parents; and (2) they object specifically to extortionist demands. We must check which conclusions are compelled by this wording.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Women’s perception: dowry is treated as their only share from parental property.
• Point of objection: “extortionist demands.”
• No explicit claim about legal rights or actual property division mechanisms.

Concept / Approach:
In logical reasoning, a conclusion is valid only if it is directly supported by the statement’s content. Inference about legality or frequency must be anchored to the given text. Words like “object to extortionist demands” naturally imply that such demands exist with non-trivial frequency in the context being discussed.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Analyze Conclusion I: “Indian women do not have any share in their parental property.” The statement reports a perception (what many women see as their share), not a legal or factual impossibility of inheriting. Therefore I overreaches and does not necessarily follow.2) Analyze Conclusion II: “Extortionist demand … is a common practice.” The statement identifies “extortionist demands” as the specific object of objection. That focus indicates the phenomenon exists widely enough to be salient; hence II reasonably follows from the wording.

Verification / Alternative check:
Replace “extortionist demands” with a rare or isolated event; the sentence would not generalize in that way. The author’s choice frames a prevalent issue, supporting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: confuses perception with legal reality. Either/Both: incorrectly grant validity to I. Neither: ignores the textual support for II.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading social/legal knowledge into a pure logic question; treating attitudes as laws.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows.