Statement — Fifty years after Independence: (a) twice as many girls die before age five compared to boys; (b) only 40% of women are literate vs 64% of men; (c) 43% of girls attend primary school vs 62% of boys.\nQuestion — Which conclusion necessarily follows from these disparities?

Introduction / Context:
The stem supplies specific gender disparities in child mortality, literacy, and school attendance. The proposed conclusions attempt to explain causes (environment/basic services) or to generalise to poverty status. We must select what is strictly implied by the stated statistics alone.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Quantified gaps disadvantaging girls/women.
• No causal attribution provided (health systems, environment, culture, income, etc.).
• No poverty headcount information by gender is given.

Concept / Approach:
Descriptive disparities do not, by themselves, justify specific causal claims or sweeping poverty classifications unless those links are explicitly stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Multiple plausible explanations fit the same disparities (socio-cultural norms, household allocation, safety, quality of schooling, etc.). Since many causal stories are consistent, none is logically forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Importing background knowledge or policy judgements into a purely logical question.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows, and