Statement:\nWorld oil prices fell by two cents when country X agreed to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to review their weapons.\nConclusions:\nI. Country X is an oil-producing country.\nII. Country X is not an oil-producing country.

Introduction / Context:
Market-sensitive geopolitical news often moves oil prices regardless of the country’s production status. Here, prices fell when country X allowed UN inspections. We must decide if anything about X’s producer status necessarily follows.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Oil prices responded to a geopolitical decision by country X.
• No explicit statement about X’s oil production is made.
• Global oil markets incorporate risk premia and expectations.

Concept / Approach:
Oil prices can fall if perceived supply risks ease (lower war risk, lower sanction risk, safer shipping), even if the country in question is not directly an oil producer. Likewise, a producer’s favorable move might cut risk premia, but the statement does not assert production. Therefore, neither “X is a producer” nor “X is not a producer” is a necessary inference.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Check I: Price reaction alone does not require X to produce oil → does not follow.2) Check II: Equally, the same evidence cannot prove the negative → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “as the world’s major oil exporter, X’s move cut supply fears,” I might follow. If it had said “X imports all of its oil,” II might follow. We have neither.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II: assert more than the text supports. Either: wrong because at least one must necessarily follow; here, none does.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating market reaction with production status; forgetting that prices reflect global expectations, not just direct output.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows