Statement:\n“If I had my way, I would ban poll surveys and exit polls as they appear to be planted. Note that these polls had given fewer seats to Party X and had left Party Y way behind in the fray.” — Chief Minister of state Z\nConclusions:\nI. Party X got more seats than poll surveys predicted.\nII. Party Y suffered a defeat in forming the government.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker alleges bias in polls, saying they underpredicted X and showed Y “way behind.” We must decide which conclusions must follow solely from this content, not from political context or results we may know.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Polls gave Party X “lesser” seats than actual (as implied complaint).
• Polls showed Party Y “way behind in the fray.”
• No explicit final government formation outcome is stated.

Concept / Approach:
When a speaker contrasts poll predictions with subsequent reality, a minimal, necessary inference is that reality diverged from the poll direction indicated. For X, the statement directly claims underprediction, implying X actually secured more seats than predicted.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) For Conclusion I: “Polls gave fewer to X” → the intended meaning is that X actually got more than those polls suggested. Hence I follows.2) For Conclusion II: “Y way behind” in polls does not necessarily prove Y ultimately “got defeated in forming the government.” Being “behind” in polls could still be overcome post-poll, via alliances, or error margins.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had explicitly said “Y lost the government formation,” II would follow. It does not; it only critiques poll portrayals.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: not supported. Either I or II: too weak; II is not compelled. Neither: incorrect because I is compelled by the speaker’s own words.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading real-world election results into the logical task; equating poor polling with certain defeat.

Final Answer:
if only conclusion I follows