Statement:\n“The government has taken every possible step to deal effectively with the drought. Our godowns are brimming with foodgrains.” — Prime Minister of country X\nConclusions:\nI. The government of country X will not let anyone die of hunger.\nII. Effective and concentrated effort is likely to lessen the people’s miseries caused by drought.

Introduction / Context:
The statement–conclusion task asks whether a conclusion is a logically necessary consequence of the given statement alone. Here, the Prime Minister asserts that every possible step has been taken to face the drought and that foodgodowns are full. We must test what necessarily follows from these two assertions without importing outside facts like previous relief performance, logistics, or political intent.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Every possible step” has been taken to deal with drought.
• Foodgodowns are full, implying abundant stocks.
• No explicit claim about distribution outcomes, last-mile delivery, or zero mortality is made.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I is an absolute promise of outcome (“no one will die of hunger”). The statement does not guarantee an outcome; it only claims actions and stock availability. Outcomes depend on distribution, affordability, accessibility, and timeliness. Conclusion II is a cautious, probabilistic effect: concentrated efforts are likely to reduce suffering. This aligns with the intent and resource availability mentioned.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Map statement to effects: resources + actions → potential relief.2) Evaluate I: “No one will die” is stronger than what is stated; it is not a necessary consequence → does not follow.3) Evaluate II: It is reasonable (and logically supported) that focused efforts tend to lessen drought misery → follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement said “we guarantee zero hunger deaths,” then I would follow. It does not. It only evidences preparedness and stock levels.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: overstates certainty. Either I or II: admits I might follow, which it does not. Neither: ignores the supported, softer inference in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing resources and intent with guaranteed outcomes; overlooking that “likely” in II reflects a reasonable, text-backed expectation.

Final Answer:
if only conclusion II follows