Statement:\nFrom the next academic year, students will have the option of dropping Mathematics and Science for their school-leaving certificate examination.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Students who are weak in Mathematics and Science will be benefited.\nII. Earlier, students did not have the choice to continue their education without these subjects.\n\nWhich option is correct?

Introduction / Context:
The policy change introduces new flexibility for school-leaving examinations. We must infer its implications for weak students and compare the new regime with the previous one.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• New option: Students may drop Mathematics and Science.
• Timing: Applies from the next academic year—implies a change from the prior state.

Concept / Approach:
Policies that add options typically benefit those disadvantaged under compulsion (e.g., weak in certain subjects). The explicit “from next year” phrasing signals that earlier this option was unavailable.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Compare regimes: Old (mandatory subjects) vs. New (optional). The new rule is meaningful only if the old rule lacked this option, and the beneficiaries are precisely those who struggle with the subjects.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Claiming only one conclusion ignores either the change over time (II) or the intended beneficiaries (I). “Neither” contradicts the plain-language implications.

Common Pitfalls:
Over-subtle readings that deny obvious prospective contrast; ignoring the primary impacted subgroup.

Final Answer:
If both Conclusions I and II follow.