Law and Corruption — Interpreting Causal Claims Statement: • The 'Official Secrets Act' (OSA) enacted by the ABC government during the war seems to be one of the major sources of corruption in country X. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Introduction / Context:
The statement claims the OSA “seems to be one of the major sources” of corruption. We must assess two strong conclusions: abolish OSA to end corruption, and that the enacting government intended to encourage corruption.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• OSA is presented as a probable contributor, among others, to corruption.
• No claim is made that OSA is the only source.
• No claim is made about the ABC government's intent at enactment.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“abolish OSA to put an end to corruption”) assumes OSA is both necessary and sufficient for corruption. The statement only says “one of the major sources,” so removing it may reduce but not end corruption. Conclusion II imputes intent; the statement gives no evidence about motive.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if OSA were abolished, other sources could persist; likewise, wartime enactment could have legitimate security motives.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Either / Both: each overstates beyond the cautious, plural-cause phrasing.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing contributory cause with sole cause; inferring intent from outcomes.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows