Statement: National Aluminium Company has moved Georgia from a position of aluminium shortage to self-sufficiency in this metal. Conclusions: 1. Previously, Georgia had to import aluminium. 2. With this speed, Georgia can soon become a foreign exchange earner by exporting aluminium. Which of the above conclusions logically follow from the statement?

Introduction / Context:
This statement-and-conclusion question is about interpreting a short economic statement regarding aluminium production in Georgia. You must decide which conclusions necessarily follow from the fact that Georgia has moved from a shortage situation to self-sufficiency in aluminium, thanks to the National Aluminium Company. The focus is on what is logically implied, not on what might be optimistically predicted.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Georgia was previously in a position of shortage with respect to aluminium.
Now, as per the statement, Georgia has reached self-sufficiency in aluminium production.
Self-sufficiency means domestic production is sufficient to meet domestic demand, so external dependence is removed or greatly reduced.
Conclusion 1: Previously, Georgia had to import aluminium.
Conclusion 2: With this speed, Georgia can soon become a foreign exchange earner by exporting aluminium.

Concept / Approach:
A conclusion “follows” if it must be true given the statement. We do not accept mere possibilities, hopes or forecasts as logically necessary conclusions. We therefore analyse whether the move from shortage to self-sufficiency forces each conclusion to be true, or whether it merely makes it possible or probable.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Shortage in aluminium before self-sufficiency means domestic production was not enough to meet domestic demand. In such a situation, countries commonly import the commodity to bridge the gap. Therefore, it is very reasonable and standard in such exam questions to infer that Georgia previously imported aluminium. Hence, Conclusion 1 is treated as a logical follow-up: if there was a shortage earlier and now there is self-sufficiency, earlier imports are the natural explanation. Now consider Conclusion 2: that at this speed Georgia can soon become a foreign exchange earner by exporting aluminium. The statement only says that Georgia has reached self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency means production equals demand; export would require surplus production beyond domestic needs. The statement does not mention any continued rate of growth, planned expansion or confirmed future surplus. Therefore, the idea of becoming an exporter is only a possibility or hope, not a necessary logical conclusion from the given statement.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a situation where production rises just enough to meet current demand and then stabilises. In such a case, the country is self-sufficient but never exports. This directly shows that Conclusion 2 is not forced by the statement. However, earlier, when there was shortage, it is quite natural that some imports were needed, which supports Conclusion 1 as a valid inference in the style of such reasoning questions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Stating that only Conclusion 2 follows ignores the speculative nature of future exports. Choosing both conclusions implies that export capacity is guaranteed, which is not stated. The “either 1 or 2” option is incorrect because both are not mutually exclusive logical consequences; only one stands. Saying neither follows disregards the standard inference that a previous shortage is usually covered by imports in such economic contexts.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates are tempted by forward-looking statements like “soon become a foreign exchange earner” and treat them as conclusions, but in logical reasoning, such predictions are not accepted unless explicitly supported. Another error is to think that self-sufficiency automatically means surplus; it does not — surplus is beyond self-sufficiency.

Final Answer:
Only Conclusion 1 logically follows from the given statement. The correct option is Only conclusion 1 follows.