Statement:\nMorning walks are good for health.\nConclusions:\nI. All healthy people go for morning walks.\nII. Evening walks are harmful.

Introduction / Context:
The statement gives a sufficiency-type recommendation (morning walks are beneficial). We must not convert it into universal necessities or into negative claims about other activities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Morning walks contribute positively to health.
• No statement about all healthy people's habits.
• No statement about evening walks.

Concept / Approach:
From “X is good,” it does not follow that “all good outcomes require X,” nor that “not-X is bad.” These are classic invalid inferences.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: “All healthy people go for morning walks” converts a sufficiency into a necessity; the premise does not warrant that → does not follow.2) II: Nothing is said about evening walks. They could be good, neutral, or bad; the premise is silent → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement said “only morning walks make you healthy,” I might follow. Or if it had condemned evening walks, II might follow. Neither is present.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option admitting I or II reads more than what is asserted.

Common Pitfalls:
Illicitly converting sufficiency to necessity; assuming mutually exclusive benefits across times of day.

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows