Statement:\n“The militants killed in the recent commando operation in country X wore new shoes,” said a leader of country X.\nConclusions:\nI. The militants were not citizens of country X.\nII. The militants were not foreigners.

Introduction / Context:
A descriptive observation (“wore new shoes”) is provided about militants. From this, we are asked to infer their citizenship status. This is a classic test of avoiding speculative leaps beyond the statement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Militants wore new shoes.
• No information about origin, language, documents, or affiliations is supplied.
• No rule connecting shoe condition to citizenship is stated.

Concept / Approach:
A property like “new shoes” is not logically linked to nationality. New shoes could be worn by locals or foreigners, procured locally or abroad, issued by handlers, or acquired recently for the mission. Hence, neither “they were not citizens” nor “they were not foreigners” is a necessary inference.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Consider I: “Not citizens” cannot be deduced from footwear condition → does not follow.2) Consider II: The opposite claim is equally unsupported → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement added decisive identifiers (passports, dialect, unit insignia), one side might follow. We have none.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: each requires unstated background linking shoes to nationality.

Common Pitfalls:
Inferring identity from incidental details; reading political insinuations as logical proof.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows