Statement:\nThere is no person who does not possess some virtue, and no person who is entirely free from evil.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Man is fraught with either virtue or evil (but not both).\nII. Good and evil points are both present in all of us.

Introduction / Context:
The statement encodes two universal claims: (a) everyone has at least some virtue, and (b) no one is entirely devoid of evil. We must test which conclusion represents the logical synthesis of these two universals.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• For every person P: virtue(P) > 0.
• For every person P: evil(P) > 0.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion II is a direct restatement: each person has both good and evil traits. Conclusion I is a mutually exclusive framing (“either…or…”) contradicting the conjunction in the premises. Therefore only II follows.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Combine the quantifiers: ∀P, virtue(P) and evil(P) are present.2) Evaluate I: “either” excludes simultaneity, which conflicts with the conjunction → I does not follow.3) Evaluate II: explicitly matches the conjunction → II follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
If even a single person lacked either virtue or evil, the given universals would be false. Since the statement rules that out, II must hold for everyone.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both/Either” include the contradictory either/or claim; “Neither” ignores the explicit conjunctive logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading two universal positives as a disjunction instead of a conjunction.

Final Answer:
If only conclusion II follows.