Analytical Reasoning – Power structures and consensus: In a highly centralized power setup where even senior cabinet ministers become yes-men who anticipate or mirror the Prime Minister’s views, genuine consensus is replaced by orchestrated unanimity endorsing the leader’s actions. Determine which conclusions must follow: (I) Ministers play safe by avoiding anti-government views; (II) The Prime Minister does not encourage colleagues to present their own independent views.

Given data

• Premise: Centralized power → ministers reduce themselves to yes-men; consensus is merely contrived unanimity endorsing the leader.
• Conclusion I: Ministers avoid anti-government/dissenting views.
• Conclusion II: The PM does not encourage colleagues’ independent views.

Concept/Approach
If ministers are 'yes-men', dissent is suppressed and independent advice is disincentivized. Both conclusions are immediate implications.

Step-by-step evaluation
• From 'yes-men' behavior and orchestrated endorsements, it follows that airing anti-government views would not occur → I follows.• A climate that yields contrived unanimity rather than real consensus implies the leader discourages independent input → II follows.

Verification
If ministers did air independent/anti views, the observed 'orchestrated unanimity' would break. Likewise, if the PM encouraged independent views, ministers would not reduce themselves to yes-men.

Common pitfalls

• Reading 'consensus' as genuine agreement rather than coerced unanimity described here.

Final Answer
Both I and II follow.