Energy reasoning — what follows from a strong claim Statement: • Use of non conventional sources of energy will eliminate the energy crisis in the world. Conclusions to evaluate: I. Modern technology is gradually replacing conventional sources of energy. II. Excessive exploitation of environment has led to depletion of conventional sources of energy.

Introduction / Context:
The statement offers a solution oriented claim: using non conventional energy will eliminate the energy crisis. Our task is to test whether two broader conclusions about technology trends and environmental depletion necessarily follow from that claim.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim concerns effectiveness of non conventional sources for solving the crisis.
• No data is given about current pace of replacement of conventional sources.
• No causal history about environmental exploitation is included.

Concept / Approach:
From a prescriptive or predictive claim about what will solve a problem, you cannot infer detailed back stories or trend lines unless they are explicitly stated or required. The must follow test rejects conclusions that need extra facts.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
It is consistent with the statement that conventional sources are abundant but poorly distributed, or that technology is static, yet non conventional adoption would still solve the crisis. Therefore neither conclusion is compelled.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: each reads in unstated background narratives.
• Either or Both: again add unsupported content.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a proposed solution with a diagnosis of causes or a report of current trends.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows