Statement:\n“If you are attacked, it is legitimate under international law to exercise the right of hot pursuit. At this moment we are not considering it.” — Union Home Minister of country X\nConclusions:\nI. Hot pursuit is the ultimate step.\nII. Country X has been attacked by another country.

Introduction / Context:
The minister states a conditional legality (if attacked → hot pursuit is legitimate) and adds that it is not being considered currently. We must avoid importing additional facts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Hot pursuit can be legal if attacked.
• Currently, the government is not considering it.
• No explicit statement of an attack having occurred.

Concept / Approach:
From a conditional legal statement, we cannot rank hot pursuit among “ultimate” options; nor can we infer that an attack has actually happened. The second sentence even softens immediacy by saying it is not under consideration now.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: “Ultimate step” is a value judgment not present in the statement → does not follow.2) II: No assertion of a current/actual attack appears → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “after we were attacked yesterday…,” II would follow; if it said “hot pursuit is the final recourse,” I would follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: each treats possibility as fact.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing conditional legality with factual occurrence.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows