The population in metro cities is increasing and causing shortage of living space; which of the given conclusions about government action logically follows?

Introduction / Context:
This is a statements and conclusions question about urban population growth and living conditions. You must accept the given statement as true and then test which policy suggestions logically follow, without inserting your own policy preferences.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Population in metro cities is increasing tremendously, leading to shortage of living space and a drop in living conditions.
• Conclusion 1: Government should re-plan city development.
• Conclusion 2: Government should demolish illegal buildings and build cottages for people.
• We look for conclusions that are reasonably suggested by the problem described.

Concept / Approach:
A conclusion in such questions should be a logical or reasonable step suggested by the given problem description. The statement points to a broad issue (unplanned growth and poor conditions) rather than a very specific remedy. A general call to re-plan city development is a natural conclusion, while a very detailed solution may or may not be implied.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The statement clearly links rapid population growth with shortage of space and worse living conditions. Step 2: Re-planning city development is a broad policy tool that directly targets this kind of structural problem. It is natural to conclude that the government should reconsider planning strategies. Step 3: Demolishing illegal buildings and building cottages is only one specific kind of action. The statement does not say that illegal buildings are the main cause or that cottages are the chosen solution. Step 4: Therefore conclusion 1 follows reasonably from the problem description, but conclusion 2 is too specific and not directly supported.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a city where population growth is managed by vertical development and mass transit. There may still be shortages or other issues, but the key need is careful planning. The government could improve conditions by revising housing, transport and zoning policies without necessarily demolishing illegal buildings or building cottages. Hence conclusion 2 does not universally follow from the statement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A treats both conclusions as following, which wrongly elevates one specific policy to the same level as the general planning suggestion. Option B claims that neither follows, ignoring the clear link between the problem and the need for re-planning. Option D selects only conclusion 2, which is not implied. Option E suggests that at least one of the two follows without specifying which, but the question expects the exact correct one.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes read their own views on urban policy into the question, for example assuming that illegal buildings are always the main cause, or feeling that cottages are desirable. However, logical reasoning questions need you to stick closely to what is actually stated.

Final Answer:
The correct choice is that only conclusion 1 follows from the given statement.