Statement:\n“Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.”\nConclusions:\nI. Fashion designers do not understand people's minds very well.\nII. People, by and large, are highly susceptible to novelty.

Introduction / Context:
The aphoristic statement suggests that fashion must keep changing rapidly because the prior look becomes intolerable. We examine which conclusion is a necessary implication of this idea.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fashion changes frequently (roughly every six months).
• The driver of change is an intolerance for the existing look, implying a craving for newness.
• Nothing is said about designers’ understanding of psychology.

Concept / Approach:
If something must be altered very frequently to remain acceptable, it implies the audience strongly favors novelty or quickly tires of the present. The statement does not evaluate designers’ skill; it comments on the dynamics of taste and tolerance.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion I: “Designers do not understand people's minds.” The premise offers no evidence about designers’ competence; frequent change could be a deliberate strategy that matches consumer psychology perfectly. Therefore I does not follow.2) Conclusion II: “People are highly susceptible to novelty.” The described six-month churn implies receptivity to newness and quick boredom with the old. Thus II follows logically.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had criticized designers’ misreading of tastes, I could follow. Instead, it characterizes fashion's nature, not designers’ skill.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: unsupported. Either I or II: wrongly admits I. Neither: ignores the clear novelty implication in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Attributing causality to designers rather than consumer psychology; overlooking that rapid cycles indicate demand for novelty.

Final Answer:
if only Conclusion II follows