Statement:\nMultinational fast-food chains have started operations in India after facing many problems; farmer associations say they are ready for competition.\nConclusions:\nI. Farmer associations are not supporting modernization.\nII. Farmer associations are not ready to compete with multinational companies.

Introduction / Context:
The premise has two parts: (1) MNC fast-food chains have begun operations despite initial difficulties; (2) farmer associations state they are ready for competition. We must assess the necessary inferences about farmers’ attitudes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• MNCs are present (after problems).
• Farmer associations claim readiness to compete.
• No explicit stance on modernization beyond this readiness is provided.

Concept / Approach:
Logical necessity depends on what is explicitly stated. Readiness to compete is inconsistent with “not ready,” and it also does not imply a rejection of modernization; being ready could well include adopting modern practices.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: “Not supporting modernization” is not stated and contradicts the competitive posture that often entails modernization; hence I does not follow.2) II: “Not ready to compete” directly contradicts the statement that they are ready; hence II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had asserted resistance to modern practices or unwillingness to compete, either I or II might follow. It asserts the opposite.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: each conflicts with the stated readiness. “Neither” correctly reflects the premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting stereotyped attitudes toward modernization onto the associations without textual support.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows