Statement:\nThe Government has cut the interest rate on General Provident Fund (GPF) and the Special Deposit Scheme (SDS) from 9.5% to 9.0%. At the same time, it has reduced the interest on loans to government employees by 0.5%.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Now cheaper funds will be available from the Centre's coffers for those planning to construct/purchase a house or buy a vehicle or computer.\nII. Government employees will not be ready to invest their money into the scheme.

Introduction / Context:
The statement specifies two simultaneous policy adjustments: a decrease in the administered return on savings instruments (GPF/SDS) and a reduction in the interest charged on loans extended to government employees. The question asks which conclusions logically follow from these facts, without importing assumptions not grounded in the text.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• GPF/SDS interest rate reduced from 9.5% to 9.0%.
• Interest on loans to government employees reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
• Typical loan purposes include house/vehicle/computer purchase as explicitly mentioned.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I claims cheaper funds will be available for borrowers drawing loans from the Centre’s schemes. A direct rate cut on such loans makes borrowing cheaper by definition; therefore I follows. Conclusion II asserts employees “will not be ready” to invest in the scheme. While lower deposit rates can reduce attractiveness, the statement does not claim investor behavior will turn outright negative or that they will refuse to invest. Hence II is not compelled by the given text.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Loan rate ↓ 0.5% → equates to cheaper borrowing for eligible uses → supports I.2) Deposit rate ↓ 0.5% → may reduce incentive, but “will not be ready to invest” is too strong and not stated → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even after a reduction, contributors might continue investing (forced saving, tax benefits, safety). Thus II cannot be derived as a necessary outcome.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” accepts an unsupported behavioral claim. “Either/Neither” mishandle the clear, mechanical effect of the loan rate reduction.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing likely behavioral shifts with logically necessary consequences.

Final Answer:
If only conclusion I follows.