Statement:\nProgress on the Rs 54,000-crore National Highway Development Project is slow; the government is considering an additional cess on petrol and diesel to raise about Rs 2,000 crore annually for road infrastructure.\n\nConclusions:\nI. The additional levy will boost industrial growth.\nII. The highway development project is facing financial constraints.

Introduction / Context:
The statement links slow project progress with a proposal to raise dedicated funds via a fuel cess. We must identify which conclusions are logically compelled by this linkage. One conclusion asserts a broad macro outcome; the other identifies a proximate constraint.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Project: NHDP worth Rs 54,000 crore.
• Status: slow progress.
• Policy under consideration: add fuel cess to mobilize ~Rs 2,000 crore annually for roads.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion II follows: mobilizing additional dedicated funds suggests that funding is a limiting factor (or at least a materially relevant one) for progress; the policy response directly targets finances. Conclusion I (boost to industrial growth) is plausible in a long run (better roads aid logistics), but it is not stated and is not a necessary outcome of the levy—it could even have short-run cost effects; thus I does not logically follow from the text alone.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the problem–solution pair: slow progress → raise funds → implies financial constraints → II follows.2) Macro growth effects depend on many factors; not asserted → I does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If delays stemmed solely from non-financial issues (land acquisition, contracting), raising a cess would not address the bottleneck—yet the government is considering it, reinforcing that finances are at least a significant constraint.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” assumes an unstated growth claim; “Either/Neither” mishandle the clear financial implication.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating project financing logic with aggregate growth predictions.

Final Answer:
If only conclusion II follows.