Statements:\nI. For protection of Indian museums, the Central Government is responsible.\nII. Victoria Memorial Hall is national property.\nConclusions:\nI. Indian Museum is national property.\nII. The nation’s historical property is protected by the Central Government.

Introduction / Context:
Two independent statements are provided: Central protection responsibility for “Indian museums,” and that “Victoria Memorial Hall” is national property. We must test conclusions that extend beyond those exact claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Central Government responsibility pertains to “Indian museums.”
• Victoria Memorial Hall (a specific institution) is national property.
• No explicit statement about Indian Museum’s ownership category or about all historical property is made.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I asserts that “Indian Museum” (a particular museum) is national property. That does not follow from (I), which states protection responsibility, not ownership category, and (II), which is about a different institution. Conclusion II generalizes protection to all “historical property,” which exceeds the scope “museums.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Protection responsibility ≠ ownership status; and Victoria Memorial’s status does not imply the same for Indian Museum → does not follow.2) II: From “Central protects museums,” it does not follow that it protects all historical property; many historical assets are not museums → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If a statement had said “All national historical property is protected by the Center,” II could follow; it did not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/II” and “Both” overgeneralize. “None” respects the limited scope.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing responsibility for a class (museums) with ownership; extrapolating to “all historical property.”

Final Answer:
None of the conclusion follows.