Statement:\nCalamities strike India as a regular event. Unless we are well prepared and well equipped to meet the onslaught, the devastation in terms of death and destruction will remain high and harrowing.\n\nConclusions:\nI. India is struck by floods every few years.\nII. Taking cautious, preparatory steps requires scientific expertise.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a general caution about recurring calamities in India and the need for preparedness to curb devastation. It does not specify the type of calamity nor the exact nature of preparedness beyond being “well prepared and equipped.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Calamities (in general) occur regularly.
• Preparedness and equipment are necessary to mitigate impact.
• No specific hazard like floods, earthquakes, etc., is singled out.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I narrows the claim to floods specifically and to a periodicity (“every few years”), neither of which is asserted. The calamities could include cyclones, quakes, heatwaves, landslides, etc. Conclusion II introduces “scientific expertise” as a requirement; while expertise may be helpful in reality, the statement does not explicitly link preparedness to “scientific” capability. Therefore neither conclusion is logically compelled by the given text.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Check specificity: “calamities” ≠ “floods” → I does not follow.2) Check requirement phrasing: “well prepared and equipped” does not necessarily equal “scientific expertise” → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even community-level, administrative preparedness (evacuation, stockpiles) fits the statement without invoking technical expertise explicitly.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Both” presume details absent from the statement; “Only I/Only II” similarly add unstated content.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading personal knowledge (e.g., frequent floods) into a generic premise.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.