Statement: “High pressure boilers are hazardous pieces of equipment, which are strictly regulated with special laws.” Consider this statement to be true and decide which of the given conclusions follows beyond a reasonable doubt.

Introduction / Context:
This question deals with regulatory policy and logical inference. You are told that high pressure boilers are hazardous and are strictly regulated with special laws. From this, you must decide whether certain conclusions about their market availability and rarity can be drawn. The key is to recognise the limits of what strict regulation implies and to avoid reading in extra information that is not actually guaranteed by the statement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: High pressure boilers are hazardous pieces of equipment, which are strictly regulated with special laws.
• Conclusion I: If not regulated, high pressure boilers will be easily available in the market.
• Conclusion II: High pressure boilers are rare.
• Task: Determine which conclusion, if any, follows beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concept / Approach:
Strict regulation implies that there are legal controls on manufacture, sale, or use, but it does not automatically tell us what would happen in the absence of regulation, nor does it guarantee rarity. Many regulated items, such as medicines, cars, or industrial equipment, are widely used despite regulation. We must distinguish between what could be true in some situations and what must be true as a logical consequence of the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The statement tells us two things: high pressure boilers are hazardous and they are strictly regulated by special laws.Step 2: Consider Conclusion I: If not regulated, high pressure boilers will be easily available in the market. The given statement never discusses what would happen if regulation were removed.Step 3: It is possible that even without regulation, high pressure boilers would still be expensive, require special expertise, or be produced only by a few companies. So easy availability is not guaranteed.Step 4: Strict regulation does not logically imply that in its absence, availability becomes easy; it only implies that the authorities see a need for control.Step 5: Now consider Conclusion II: High pressure boilers are rare. While strict regulation might reduce their numbers, many hazardous items (for example, industrial equipment) can be common in specialised settings and yet strictly regulated.Step 6: The statement does not mention how many such boilers exist or how frequently they are used. They could be common in power plants and factories.Step 7: Therefore, we cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that high pressure boilers are rare based only on the statement given.Step 8: Since neither conclusion is forced by the statement, the appropriate answer is that neither follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine an industrialised country where high pressure boilers are used in almost every large factory and power station. Because they are hazardous, they are indeed strictly regulated by special laws. This scenario satisfies the statement but contradicts Conclusion II, since the boilers are not rare. Also imagine that even if laws were relaxed, these boilers would still require specialised installation, which prevents easy availability in ordinary markets. This shows that Conclusion I is not guaranteed either. Thus, both conclusions can be false while the statement remains true.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a is wrong because Conclusion I does not necessarily follow; strict regulation does not prove that lack of regulation produces easy availability.
• Option b is wrong because nothing in the statement quantifies how common or rare high pressure boilers are.
• Option c is wrong because if each individual conclusion fails, they cannot both follow.
• Option e incorrectly suggests a contradiction where none exists; rarity is not mentioned in the original statement at all.

Common Pitfalls:

• Assuming that strict regulation always implies rarity, even though many common items are strictly regulated.
• Inferring strong what if scenarios (such as free market flooding) from regulation, without direct evidence.
• Not separating what seems plausible in real life from what is logically forced by the exact words of the statement.

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows from the given statement.