Statements:\nI. Education is a process of lighting.\nII. The mind requires light to enlighten the core of the cognitive aspect.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Education is a light which removes the darkness of the mind.\nII. Education is a static process for the mind.

Introduction / Context:
Statement–Conclusion questions test whether a conclusion follows strictly from the given statements without importing outside facts. Here, education is metaphorically equated with lighting, and the mind is said to need light to enlighten its cognitive core. We must decide whether each conclusion necessarily follows from these premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Education is described as a process of lighting (dynamic, ongoing activity).
• The mind requires light to enlighten its cognitive core.
• Light vs darkness is a standard metaphor for knowledge vs ignorance.

Concept / Approach:
Map metaphors consistently. If education is a process of lighting and the mind needs light for enlightenment, then education provides the light that dispels the mind’s darkness (ignorance). Also, a process of lighting is dynamic, not static. Any claim of static nature would contradict the premise that emphasizes process.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From Statement I: education = process (ongoing) of lighting.2) From Statement II: the mind needs light to enlighten its core.3) If education supplies light, and light enlightens the mind, then education removes mental darkness → Conclusion I follows.4) Because education is described as a process, calling it static contradicts the depiction → Conclusion II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Replace the word process with state; only then would static be plausible. Since the text explicitly uses a process metaphor (lighting), static is incompatible.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: contradicts the process idea. Both: cannot hold because II fails. Neither: ignores the clear entailment of I. Any option suggesting II is consistent with the statements misreads the word process.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating evocative metaphors as vague. In reasoning tests, metaphors used systematically (light/darkness for knowledge/ignorance) carry logical weight when consistently applied within the given premises.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion I follows.