Reasoning about policy change and what it implies Statement: • From the next academic year, students will have the option to drop Mathematics and Science for the school leaving certificate examination. Conclusions to evaluate: I. Students who are weak in Science and Mathematics will be admitted. II. Earlier, students did not have the choice to continue education without taking these subjects.

Introduction / Context:
Policy shift questions ask you to infer what necessarily changes and what is unrelated. The statement announces a future option to drop Mathematics and Science for a leaving examination. We must identify the conclusion that must be true, not what might also happen.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• New option effective next academic year.
• Subjects mentioned: Mathematics and Science.
• No mention of admissions, selection, or remedial policy.

Concept / Approach:
When a policy says from next year students will have an option, it usually implies that previously that option was not available. Other topics like admission or weakness are outside the scope unless stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If the option already existed earlier, there would be no need to announce that students will have it from next year. So II is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I: out of scope because admission is not discussed.
• Either / Neither / Both: only II has direct logical support; I does not.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing curricular options with admission policy; reading emotional or performance labels like weak into a neutral administrative change.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows