Statement:\n“I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.”\nConclusions:\nI. The writer’s knowledge is very poor.\nII. The world of knowledge is too vast to be explored by a single person.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a self-assessment: the speaker recognizes only their own ignorance. We evaluate whether this necessarily implies poor personal knowledge (I) and whether it asserts a sweeping truth about the vastness of all knowledge (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The speaker claims to know only that they are ignorant.
• No general claim about the entire universe of knowledge is made.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I is a paraphrase of the self-report: admitting ignorance implies poor knowledge by the speaker. Conclusion II is an extrapolation about the world’s knowledge being too vast for any single person; that may be a common philosophical stance, but it is not asserted here.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: “Know nothing… except my ignorance” → the writer acknowledges extremely limited knowledge → I follows.2) II: The premise does not generalize about all people or the scope of knowledge; therefore II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “no one can explore all knowledge,” II would follow. It does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Neither ignore the self-referential clarity of I.

Common Pitfalls:
Injecting a larger epistemological thesis into a purely personal confession.

Final Answer:
if Conclusion I follows