Statement: “India’s economy depends mainly on forests.” Conclusions: I. Trees should be preserved to improve India’s economy. II. India wants only the maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions.

Introduction / Context:The premise claims a primary dependence of India’s economy on forests. We must decide whether a conservation-oriented policy recommendation (I) necessarily follows, and whether an exclusivity claim (II) follows.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Forests are the main economic support (as per the statement).
• No claim is made that other sectors are irrelevant.

Concept / Approach:If a critical resource underpins the economy, preserving it is a rational necessary condition for sustaining or improving that economy. However, claiming “only” forests are wanted excludes all other levers, which the statement does not warrant.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: If forests are the main support, preservation is a necessary policy implication for economic improvement → follows.2) II: The word “only” overreaches. The statement does not exclude other economic drivers or policies → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:Had the statement asserted “only forests matter,” II might follow; it does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II” and “either” misread the exclusivity claim; “neither” ignores the necessary preservation logic in I.

Common Pitfalls:Treating a “main” factor as the “sole” factor; overlooking that preservation is a logical necessity for a primary resource.

Final Answer:if Conclusion I follows