Statement:\nModern man influences his destiny by the choices he makes, unlike in the past.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Earlier, there were fewer (or limited) options available.\nII. In the past, there was no desire to influence destiny.\n\nWhich option is correct?

Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts the present with the past regarding agency over destiny via choices. We must decide which historical inference is justified.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Now: People influence destiny through choices.
• Past: Implicitly, this influence (via choices) was limited or not comparable.

Concept / Approach:
If choice enables influence today “unlike in the past,” a natural reading is that the breadth or availability of choices was restricted earlier. However, the text says nothing about people’s desire to influence destiny in the past—only about their capability via choices.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Model 1: Past had strict social/economic constraints limiting options; desire may have existed but was thwarted—consistent with the statement and supports I, not II. Model 2: Past had some options but fewer than today—again supports I only.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option endorsing II adds a motivational claim absent from the premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “cannot” with “did not want to”; reading normative psychology into structural constraints.

Final Answer:
If only Conclusion I follows.