Statements:\nA. The constitution assures the fundamental rights.\nB. Parliament has the right to amend the constitution.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Parliament included fundamental rights in the constitution.\nII. Parliament did not assure the fundamental rights.\n\nWhich option is correct?

Introduction / Context:
From two statements—(A) the constitution (as a document) assures fundamental rights and (B) Parliament may amend the constitution—we must determine what, if anything, follows about Parliament’s role in assuring those rights.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A: Source of assurance = the constitution, not identified as an act of Parliament in the premise.
• B: Parliament has amendment power, but there is no statement that Parliament authored the rights or removed/withheld them.

Concept / Approach:
Differentiate between “who assures” and “who can amend.” The presence of a power to amend does not imply authorship of a particular clause nor denial of it. Hence both conclusions need independent support that is not present.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Create two models: (1) Rights drafted by a constituent assembly; (2) Rights later amended by Parliament. Both satisfy A and B, yet neither confirm I nor II. Hence neither conclusion is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any choice asserting I or II overreaches beyond the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing capacity to amend with original authorship; importing constitutional history not stated in the premises.

Final Answer:
None of the above.