Statement:\n“We will improve the Newswatch section of our monthly magazine and switch from conventional to modern printing so that the magazine improves in both quality and economy.” — Director of ABC Magazine.\n\nConclusions:\nI. The magazine may align better with market norms on quality and cost.\nII. The magazine will challenge the existence of all other magazines.

Introduction / Context:
The Director states a plan to upgrade content (Newswatch section) and production (modern printing) with the goal of improving quality and cost-efficiency. We need to test two conclusions: a modest market-alignment claim and a sweeping dominance claim.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Actions: content improvement and adoption of modern printing methods.
• Intended outcomes: higher quality and better economy.
• No claims about competitors’ fate.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I follows: quality and cost improvements plausibly move the product closer to market expectations; “may align better” is a cautious, reasonable inference from the stated aims. Conclusion II is hyperbolic—there is nothing in the statement to suggest the magazine will threaten the existence of all rivals.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Map action→outcome: improvements target quality and economy → I follows in a modest sense.2) Rival annihilation is an extreme claim without support → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even with improvements, competitors can innovate simultaneously; dominance is not entailed by a single upgrade plan.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” asserts an unwarranted extremity. “Either/Neither” mishandle the clear directional intent of the plan.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “improvement” with “industry disruption.”

Final Answer:
If only conclusion I follows.