Policy Evaluation — Space Research vs. National Needs Statement: • The Minister questioned the utility of the space research programme and suggested replacing it with areas of felt national needs. Which conclusion(s) logically follow?

Introduction / Context:
We have a policy statement: a minister doubts the utility of a space programme and proposes redirecting resources to areas of urgent national need. We must determine which conclusions are supported.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The minister explicitly “questioned the utility” of space research.
• He suggested “replacement” by projects aligned with felt national needs.
• No data are given about the objective contribution of space research; only the minister's stance is known.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“Exploring space does not contribute to critical national needs”) is a universal factual claim. The minister's opinion does not make it universally true. Conclusion II (“Research should be oriented to national needs”) restates the policy direction implied by the suggestion to replace the programme with nationally needed areas.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if space research contributes indirectly, a policy choice can still prioritize nearer-term needs; II remains consistent with the statement, while I overreaches into an unproven universal.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I alone or Both: I is not established factually.
• Either / Neither: II clearly follows from the recommendation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a minister's skepticism with a proven general truth; mixing prescriptive policy with descriptive claims.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows