Statement: National Aluminium Company has moved India from a position of aluminium shortage to self-sufficiency in this metal. Conclusions: a) Previously, India had to import aluminium. b) With this speed, it can soon become a foreign exchange earner by exporting aluminium.

Introduction / Context:
This question is the India-focused version of the earlier aluminium example. The statement says that National Aluminium Company has moved India from aluminium shortage to self-sufficiency. You must decide whether two conclusions about past imports and future exports follow logically from this statement. The main issue is to distinguish necessary implications from mere possibilities or predictions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

India used to face a shortage of aluminium.
Now, due to National Aluminium Company, India is self-sufficient in aluminium.
Conclusion a: Previously, India had to import aluminium.
Conclusion b: With this speed, India can soon become a foreign exchange earner by exporting aluminium.

Concept / Approach:
From a logical reasoning perspective, “shortage to self-sufficiency” tells us about the change in balance between domestic demand and domestic production. Shortage implies that demand exceeded supply domestically, and self-sufficiency implies supply now roughly matches demand. The question is whether this necessarily implies past imports (for conclusion a) and guaranteed future exports (for conclusion b).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Earlier, India had a shortage of aluminium. In practice, when there is a shortage of a key industrial metal, countries usually import it to cover the shortfall. Thus, it is reasonable and standard in such exam questions to infer that India previously imported aluminium to meet domestic needs. This supports conclusion a. Now, after the company's success, India has become self-sufficient, meaning domestic production is sufficient to meet domestic demand. However, self-sufficiency alone does not guarantee surplus production for exports. Export requires production > demand, not just equal to demand. The statement does not mention a continued trajectory of growth, planned expansion beyond self-sufficiency or any confirmed surplus. Therefore, conclusion b (“soon become a foreign exchange earner”) is a forward-looking prediction, not a necessary logical consequence of the given information.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine that National Aluminium Company raises production exactly to meet India's current demand and then stabilises. In that case, India remains self-sufficient indefinitely but never produces a surplus for export. This scenario satisfies the statement but makes conclusion b false. Hence b cannot be said to logically follow. But in almost any realistic prior shortage, imports are the normal way to bridge the gap, justifying conclusion a in exam-style reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only conclusion b ignores the speculative nature of export earnings. Selecting both a and b assumes that future export will automatically follow self-sufficiency, which is not guaranteed. Saying neither follows is too strict and fails to acknowledge the common inference about past imports in a shortage situation. The “either a or b” option is for mutually exclusive valid conclusions, which is not the case here.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often confuse economic optimism with logical necessity. The phrase “with this speed” sounds hopeful, but such phrases are not enough to treat future exports as a logical conclusion. Another error is to think self-sufficiency and export potential are the same; in fact, self-sufficiency is a precondition for exports, not identical to them.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion a can be confidently drawn from the given statement. The correct option is Only conclusion a follows.