Statement: “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 aphorism (Socratic in spirit) is a self-assessment claiming knowledge of one’s ignorance. We must test whether a judgment about the writer’s knowledge level and a general claim about the vastness of knowledge follow strictly from this line.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Speaker claims to know nothing except that he is ignorant.
• No general thesis about the total scope of knowledge is directly stated.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I follows: if one claims to know nothing (save awareness of ignorance), it logically characterizes the person’s knowledge as very poor (near nil). Conclusion II would need an added premise—e.g., that the domain is too vast for one mind. The statement does not assert this; it only speaks to the speaker’s state.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Treat the sentence literally as a self-report.2) Infer I as a direct consequence of that self-report.3) Reject II as a universal claim not made in the text.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if II is plausible, logical necessity requires it be stated or entailed; it is not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing II adds an unstated generalization; “both” or “neither” misreads the self-assessment.

Common Pitfalls:
Importing the broader Socratic context about the vastness of knowledge; we must stick to the given sentence.

Final Answer:
Conclusion I follows.