Statement:\n“A neurotic is a non-stupid person who behaves stupidly.”\nConclusions:\nI. Neuroticism and stupidity go hand in hand.\nII. Normal persons behave intelligently.

Introduction / Context:
The statement draws a contrast: a neurotic is explicitly “non-stupid,” yet exhibits “stupid” behavior. This creates a distinction between inherent ability and outward conduct. We examine whether the provided conclusions necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A neurotic is not inherently stupid (non-stupid).
• Despite that, a neurotic behaves in a way described as “stupidly.”
• No claims are made about all “normal” (non-neurotic) persons.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I fuses neuroticism with stupidity (“go hand in hand”). But the statement expressly separates inherent stupidity from neuroticism. Conclusion II generalizes about “normal persons” behaving intelligently; the statement says nothing about the behavior of all non-neurotics.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Since the premise insists a neurotic is non-stupid, equating neuroticism with stupidity contradicts it. I does not follow.2) II: The statement defines the neurotic; it offers no universal law about normal persons. Some normal persons may behave unintelligently on occasion. Hence II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the premise had said “neurotics are stupid people,” I might follow; it says the opposite. If it had stated “all normal persons behave intelligently,” II might follow; it does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option admitting I or II overreaches beyond the text or contradicts it.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing capacity (“non-stupid person”) with behavior under stress (“behaves stupidly”).

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows