Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "America’s defense secretary reiterated that they would continue to supply arms to Pakistan." Which conclusions, if any, follow?

Introduction / Context:
A policy statement about arms supply says nothing explicit about Pakistan’s manufacturing capacity or the peace implications. We must avoid inserting geopolitical assumptions not present in the text.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Continue supplying arms to Pakistan.
• Conclusion I: Pakistan cannot manufacture arms.
• Conclusion II: Continued supply will ensure peace in the region.

Concept / Approach:
From a promise to supply, we cannot deduce a recipient’s incapacity; supply can occur despite local capacity. Nor can we guarantee the complex outcome of peace; arms transfers can both deter and escalate, but the statement claims neither.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I fails: The statement does not speak to indigenous production. Countries with capacity still import for interoperability or technology.II fails: No causal claim about peace is made. The statement is a reiteration, not a justification or strategic evaluation.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine Pakistan manufactures some arms but imports others; or continued supplies correlate with tension. The policy statement remains true regardless, proving neither conclusion is entailed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I only / II only / Both: add unsupported claims.
• Either: neither is compelled.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting political opinions onto neutral policy wording.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows