Legal/Logical Reasoning – Bail conditions: “All political prisoners who went to jail for reasons other than political dharnas were released on bail. Bail was not granted to persons involved in murders.” Decide which conclusions follow: (I) No political prisoner had committed murder; (II) Some politicians were not arrested.

Given data

• Rule 1: Political prisoners jailed for reasons other than political dharnas → released on bail.
• Rule 2: No bail for persons involved in murders.
• Conclusion I: No political prisoner committed murder.
• Conclusion II: Some politicians were not arrested.

Concept/Approach
We must avoid scope shifts (political prisoners vs. politicians at large) and unwarranted universal claims.

Step-by-step evaluation
• From the rules, if any political prisoner had committed murder, that person would not be granted bail. But the statements never say all political prisoners were granted bail—only a subset (those jailed for reasons other than dharnas) were. Thus we cannot infer that none had committed murder → I does not follow.• II talks about 'politicians' and their arrest status, which the premises do not discuss (they speak of political prisoners). This is a category shift; II does not follow.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.