Statement:\n“Religions provide the means for attaining eternal peace. People should follow these means.”\nConclusions:\nI. Religions ensure a prosperous life.\nII. Religions help people eradicate poverty.

Introduction / Context:
The premise claims a spiritual outcome (eternal peace) is accessible via religious means and urges adherence. We test whether material conclusions about prosperity and poverty eradication necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Religions provide means to attain eternal peace.
• People are advised to follow these means.
• No economic claims (income, wealth, poverty metrics) are made.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusions I and II translate a spiritual promise into material outcomes. The original statement distinguishes inner peace from material well-being. Without explicit bridging claims, prosperity or poverty eradication cannot be inferred as necessary results.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: “Ensure a prosperous life” is a material-economic assertion absent from the premise → does not follow.2) II: “Eradicate poverty” likewise moves into socio-economic policy territory not addressed → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement claimed “religions guarantee material prosperity/eradicate poverty,” either conclusion might follow. It does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option admitting I or II conflates spiritual means with material endpoints.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating inner peace with financial success; assuming moral/spiritual adherence directly causes economic outcomes.

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows