Statements:\nA) Vitamin B-complex is among the best substances for health.\nB) Fruits contain Vitamin B-complex.\nConclusions:\nI) We should grow more fruits.\nII) Fruits are good for health.

Introduction / Context:
We must infer what necessarily follows from claims about Vitamin B-complex and fruit content. Distinguish descriptive health implications from prescriptive policy recommendations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Vitamin B-complex is stated to be among the best for health.
• Fruits contain Vitamin B-complex.

Concept / Approach:
If fruits contain something that is very good for health, it is reasonable to infer that fruits are good for health (at least in that respect). However, a directive like “we should grow fruits” is a policy conclusion, not a necessary logical consequence of the premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion II (fruits are good for health) is supported: fruits contain B-complex; B-complex is health-beneficial ⇒ fruits have a health benefit.2) Conclusion I (we should grow fruits) involves resource, land-use, and economic considerations not present in the statements; it is not compelled by the premises.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if growing fruits is generally positive, logic requires necessity from the given statements alone, not practicality or desirability.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” overreaches by inserting a prescriptive policy. “Neither” ignores the clear health implication in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating “good for health” with policy mandates; assuming that one benefit suffices to dictate agricultural planning.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion II can be drawn.