Statement — The main attraction of the fair was the participation of mentally-challenged, hearing-impaired, and “normal” children together in a quiz, painting competition, and cultural programme. Conclusions — I. Competitions that mix “normal” and differently-abled children rarely happen. II. Such fairs are important for the betterment of differently-abled children.

Introduction / Context:The statement describes inclusive participation as the “main attraction,” signaling social value. We examine whether rarity (I) and importance for betterment (II) follow from this description.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Event: inclusive competitions among differently-abled and non-disabled children.
• “Main attraction” suggests salience and positive reception; it does not quantify frequency elsewhere.
• “Betterment” refers to developmental, social, and confidence-building benefits common to inclusive education/events.

Concept / Approach:I (rarity) would require evidence about frequency across events; “main attraction” does not prove rarity, only that this element drew interest. II follows reasonably: inclusive, public forums typically promote confidence, reduce stigma, encourage interaction, and showcase abilities, aligning with “betterment.” In standard logical conventions for such questions, positive developmental inferences consistent with the described event are acceptable; claims about frequency elsewhere are not.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:If inclusive events had no betterment value, calling them the main attraction would be incoherent in a civic/educational fair context.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:Confusing audience attraction with statistical rarity; they are unrelated.

Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows.