Statement — “It was a decade of graftocracy. Politicians became a law unto themselves, using every discretionary power at their command to earn a fast buck.” Conclusions — I. No one can earn black money without the help of politicians. II. Politicians can change the law in their favour.

Introduction / Context:The statement criticizes abuse of discretionary power by politicians to enrich themselves. We must test two sweeping conclusions: exclusivity of political facilitation for black money (I) and politicians’ ability to change laws in their favour (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise: misuse of discretion and impunity (“law unto themselves”).
• No mention of legislative change or monopoly over illicit earnings.

Concept / Approach:I claims nobody can earn illicit money without politicians — an absolute generalization unsupported by the premise; illicit earnings can exist in many spheres. II claims power to change laws; “law unto themselves” refers to acting with impunity within discretionary space, not necessarily altering statutes. Hence neither conclusion is mandated.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Replace “change the law” with “abuse discretion within existing law.” The critique still holds, showing II is not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:Interpreting rhetorical phrases literally (e.g., “law unto themselves”).

Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows.