Statement:\nDue to extensive liberalization, multinational companies (MNCs) are expanding operations in India, and products of Indian origin are losing their hold among users.\nConclusions:\nI. Indian products are costlier than MNC products.\nII. The quality of Indian products is inferior to that of MNC products.

Introduction / Context:
The statement reports two facts: liberalization has enabled MNC expansion, and users are shifting away from Indian-origin products. It does not specify the exact competitive levers (price, quality, branding, distribution, after-sales, etc.).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• MNC presence and reach are rising in India.
• Indian products are losing market hold.
• No explicit claim about price differences or quality differences is made.

Concept / Approach:
A conclusion must be a necessary implication of the statement. If multiple plausible explanations exist and the statement does not single out one, we cannot affirm that explanation as a necessary consequence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I (Indian products are costlier): Price may influence demand, but the statement does not assert price as the reason. MNCs might also win on perceived quality, variety, marketing, availability, or financing → I does not follow.2) II (Indian quality is inferior): Likewise, quality could be a factor, but the statement does not say so. Market share shifts can occur for many reasons → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement specified “users prefer MNCs because they are cheaper / higher quality,” then I or II could follow. Absent that, neither conclusion is compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that accepts I or II imports an unstated cause. “Either” still presumes at least one cause is established, which it is not.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a single causal driver for market share changes; confusing post-liberalization entry with a proof about price or quality.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows