Statement and conclusions – food processing industry: Statement: The food processing industry was touted to be a sunrise industry for India some years ago and, on the face of it, there was little reason to doubt that. Conclusions: I. India has an advantage in food processing because of varied agro-climatic conditions and the availability of raw materials. II. Food processing is one of the basic industries which supports our lives.

Introduction / Context:
This is a statement-and-conclusion question based on a short remark about the food processing industry in India. The industry is described as a “sunrise industry” with little apparent reason to doubt that label. You must decide whether two additional statements about India's advantages and the basic nature of food processing follow logically from this remark.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: The food processing industry was touted to be a sunrise industry for India, and there was little reason to doubt this at the time.
Conclusion I: India has an advantage in food processing because of varied agro-climatic conditions and availability of raw materials.
Conclusion II: Food processing is one of the basic industries which supports our lives.
We treat the statement as true but do not add extra background information.

Concept / Approach:
A “sunrise industry” is one that is expected to grow rapidly in the future. The statement only tells us about the optimistic prospects for food processing in India; it does not specify why it was so regarded. To accept a conclusion, we need its content to be either explicitly stated or strongly implied by the statement, not merely plausible or commonly known from real life.

Step-by-Step Solution:
The statement says that the food processing industry was touted as a sunrise industry in India, and that there was little reason to doubt this optimism. This indicates that many people believed the sector had strong growth prospects, but the statement does not describe the detailed reasons behind that belief. Conclusion I attributes the sunrise status to specific factors: varied agro-climatic conditions and raw material availability. While these may be true in real-world context, the given statement does not mention them. Therefore, we cannot say that Conclusion I logically follows from the single line provided; it may be a possible explanation, but it is not stated. Conclusion II claims that food processing is one of the basic industries that supports our lives. The statement focuses only on growth prospects and does not classify food processing as a “basic industry” or discuss its role in supporting life. Hence, Conclusion II also introduces new content not present or implied in the statement.

Verification / Alternative check:
To test necessity, ask: if the statement were true, must Conclusion I or II also be true? The answer is no. One could consider an industry as “sunrise” due to factors like policy changes, foreign investment or technology improvements, not necessarily agro-climatic advantages. Similarly, many industries support our lives, but being a sunrise industry does not automatically classify food processing as a “basic” industry. Thus both conclusions are possible but not logically forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that accept Conclusion I or II (alone or together) confuse plausibility with logical implication. The statement simply does not mention the reasons behind the optimism or the industry's basic nature. The “either I or II” option is used for cases where exactly one conclusion must be true, which is not supported here. The only safe choice is that neither follows from the given information alone.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to bring in external knowledge about India's agriculture and food sector, thereby endorsing Conclusion I. While that may be true in reality, logical reasoning questions require you to rely strictly on the given statement. Another pitfall is to assume that any industry related to food is automatically a “basic industry,” which is a value judgement rather than a logical consequence here.

Final Answer:
Neither of the two conclusions is logically compelled by the given statement. The correct option is If neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.