Statement:\nQuality has a price tag. India is allocating substantial funds to education.\n\nConclusions:\nI. The quality of education in India would improve soon.\nII. Funding alone can enhance the quality of education.

Introduction / Context:
The pair of statements suggests a conditional linkage: if quality requires expenditure and the state is increasing expenditure, it is reasonable to infer an improvement trajectory. However, we must avoid overstating sufficiency claims not warranted by the premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise A: Quality entails cost (a price tag).
• Premise B: India is allocating substantial funds to education.
• No explicit claim that money is the only driver of quality.

Concept / Approach:
From A and B together, a reasonable logical inference is that spending addresses at least the cost component of quality, tending toward improvement (Conclusion I). Conclusion II is stronger: it asserts sufficiency of funding alone. The premises do not eliminate the need for governance, pedagogy, accountability, or implementation quality; thus II does not follow.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) A: quality requires resources; B: resources are being provided.2) Therefore an improvement tendency is implied → I follows.3) The word alone in II demands exclusivity; A and B do not establish that money by itself is sufficient → II fails.

Verification / Alternative check:
If funds were misallocated, improvement might lag; nevertheless, the inference that increased funding tackles a necessary component of quality remains the most direct reading, supporting I but not II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II or Both: overclaim sufficiency. Neither: ignores the natural implication that paying the price tag is a step toward quality.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a necessary condition (adequate funding) with a sufficient one (funding alone).

Final Answer:
If Conclusion I follows.