Statement:\n“Every Indian has to be a part of the global war on terrorism. We must, and we will, stamp out this evil from our land, and from the world.” — Prime Minister of India.\n\nConclusions:\nI. People’s participation will certainly reduce the menace of terrorism.\nII. The Prime Minister is deeply concerned about terrorism.

Introduction / Context:
The Prime Minister’s exhortation explicitly invokes mass participation as part of a global struggle and expresses determination to “stamp out” terrorism. We must assess whether the stated conclusions are entailed by this call and expression of resolve.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A national call for universal participation against terrorism.
• Clear normative stance: terrorism is an “evil” to be eliminated.
• Language indicates commitment and concern.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion II is straightforward: the diction (“we must, and we will”) and the labeling of terrorism as “evil” plainly reflect the PM’s concern; thus II follows. Conclusion I uses “certainly reduce,” which is consistent with the PM’s premise: if broad participation is urged as necessary, it presupposes that such participation is efficacious in reducing the menace. The rhetoric implies belief in its effectiveness; therefore I follows.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Extract intent: universal involvement is proposed → implies expected efficacy → supports I.2) Evaluate tone and content: strong condemnation + pledge → demonstrates concern → supports II.

Verification / Alternative check:
If mass participation were believed ineffective, such a sweeping call would be incoherent. Hence both conclusions align with the statement’s internal logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one ignores either the evident concern or the implied efficacy. “Neither” contradicts the statement’s thrust.

Common Pitfalls:
Over-parsing “certainly” as a statistical claim; here it is a logical corollary of the call to action.

Final Answer:
If both I and II follow.