Statement — In India, emphasis should shift more to agricultural engineering and technology rather than basic/pure science.\nQuestion — Which conclusion follows?

Introduction / Context:
The policy suggestion favors applied, production-oriented domains (agri-engineering/technology) “rather than” basic/pure science. We must infer what this implies about India’s past focus and current needs without assuming success levels in basic science achievement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Normative claim: give more emphasis to applied/production-linked areas.
• No explicit claim that basic science is already “sufficient.”
• “Rather than” indicates relative reprioritization due to perceived production/economic needs.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“India has achieved sufficient development in basic/pure science”) is not entailed; the recommendation might arise from gaps in productive sectors regardless of basic science status. Conclusion II (“The production sector was neglected”) is a plausible reading: the call to shift emphasis implies prior under-emphasis on production-linked education/technology.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If production areas had not been neglected, a major policy push “rather than” basic science would be less warranted.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating a policy shift with a verdict that other areas are already “done.”

Final Answer:
if only Conclusions II follows