Statement:\nAs computers enter new markets among middle-class Indian homes and the small office–home office (SOHO) segment, pirated software is invading PCs more than ever before.\nConclusions:\nI. Big offices and rich people rarely use pirated software.\nII. Original (licensed) software is very costly compared to pirated copies.

Introduction / Context:
The statement observes a market trend: as PCs penetrate middle-class homes and SOHO users, piracy on those PCs rises. This is an observation about where piracy is increasing, not a causality analysis about why piracy happens or what other segments do.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• PC adoption is growing in middle-class homes and SOHO.
• Pirated software is appearing on these PCs “as never before.”
• Nothing is stated about big offices or rich users.
• Nothing is stated about price differentials between licensed and pirated software.

Concept / Approach:
In statement-and-conclusion reasoning, a conclusion “follows” only if it must be true whenever the statement is true. We cannot add new facts (e.g., corporate compliance rates, price gaps) that the statement does not assert.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion I claims that big offices and rich people “rarely” pirate. The statement is silent on those cohorts. Piracy might be lower, higher, or the same; we cannot deduce it → does not follow.2) Conclusion II imputes a reason (original software is very costly) for the observed piracy. The statement does not cite price as a cause; many other variables (awareness, enforcement, convenience) could matter → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had explicitly contrasted enterprise compliance versus home/SOHO piracy, I might be testable. If it had said “because original software is very expensive,” II might follow. Neither is asserted.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I,” “Only II,” and “Either” assume unstated facts. “Neither” alone respects the limited observation given.

Common Pitfalls:
Leaping from correlation (where piracy is observed) to a universal cause (price) or to claims about other market segments.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows