Statement: Despite the Government’s claim that terrorism is under control, nefarious activities by terrorists still continue.\nConclusions:\nI) Terrorists have not come to an understanding or agreement with the Government.\nII) The Government has been constantly telling a lie about the situation.

Introduction / Context:
This problem tests whether strong, additional claims can be inferred from a single comparative statement: the Government claims terrorism is under control, yet terrorist activities continue. We must decide if either of the two conclusions necessarily follows from this information alone.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise: Government claims “under check.”
• Observation: Activities continue (not necessarily their scale, frequency, or trend).
• No explicit evidence about negotiations/agreements or about the Government’s intent or veracity.

Concept / Approach:
In statement–conclusion questions, we accept the statement as true and examine whether a conclusion is a necessary logical consequence, not a plausible explanation. Any leap to motives, intentions, or hidden facts is invalid unless compelled by the premise.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion I claims a missing “understanding” with terrorists. The premise provides no information about talks or agreements; continuing activity does not logically imply the absence of any understanding (e.g., partial ceasefire, localized truces).2) Conclusion II alleges the Government is “constantly lying.” Activities may continue even when overall incidents are reduced; “under check” can mean reduced/contained, not eradicated. The premise does not prove intentional falsehood.

Verification / Alternative check:
Both conclusions add new content: motives or negotiation status. Since multiple explanations fit the premise (control without elimination, lagging effects, regional variance), neither conclusion is forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing I or II alone assumes facts not in evidence. “Either” is also invalid because neither is necessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “under check” as “zero incidents,” or equating “still continue” with “government lied.”

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion follows.