Statement: All over the world there is a rat race to achieve higher GDP growth rates; however, the economic benefits are rarely evaluated against the social costs incurred through environmental degradation.\nConclusions:\nI. Achieving higher growth by degrading the environment is not good.\nII. Other ways of achieving higher growth are more beneficial than the current approach.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt contrasts the global pursuit of higher GDP growth with the under-assessed social cost of environmental degradation. In statement–conclusion problems, we must judge what necessarily follows from the given statement, without importing external facts or opinions. The key is to test logical implication rather than plausibility.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Worldwide, economies chase higher GDP growth (“rat race”).
• Economic benefits are seldom weighed against social costs from environmental damage.
• No further quantitative claims or alternatives are provided.

Concept / Approach:
If the statement laments that environmental costs are not properly accounted for, it implicitly criticizes growth achieved via environmental harm. However, it does not propose or rate alternative growth modes. Therefore, a negative value judgment about environmentally harmful growth is supported; comparative claims about “other modes” are not.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the grievance: benefits are rarely netted against environmental social costs.2) Infer what necessarily follows: growth that ignores such costs is undesirable (I).3) Check if the statement asserts the superiority of other modes (II). It does not; it merely criticizes the current neglect of costs.

Verification / Alternative check:
The presence of an unaccounted cost implies a mis-measured outcome; calling that “not good” follows. But concluding that “other modes are more beneficial” requires data about those modes, which is absent.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II adds an unstated comparison. “Either” or “Both” overstate. “Neither” ignores the implicit negative judgment about environmentally harmful growth.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a criticism of practice with an endorsement of unspecified alternatives; assuming facts not in evidence.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows.