Statement: India’s economy is dependent mainly on forests. Conclusions: I) Trees should be preserved to improve the Indian economy. II) India wants only maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions.

Introduction / Context:The statement claims a primary dependence of India’s economy on forests. From this, we assess what policy-type inferences (preservation or exclusive maintenance) logically follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Main dependence: forests → economy.
• No assertion that forests are the only driver of the economy, nor that “only maintenance” is desired.

Concept / Approach:If forests are a main economic pillar, preserving trees (sustaining the resource base) is a reasonable necessary inference to protect economic health (I). However, II introduces exclusivity (“only maintenance of forests”), which is not in the premise and excludes other economic levers—overreach.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Translate dependence into a preservation necessity.2) Reject “only maintenance” as it is an unstated restriction.

Verification / Alternative check:Policy logic: key resources should be maintained; but economies also employ multiple sectors—contradicting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:II over-specifies; “both” repeats that error; “neither” ignores the implied preservation rationale.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing “mainly dependent on X” with “exclusively dependent on X.”

Final Answer:Conclusion I follows.