Statement:\nHe emphasized the need to replace the present training program with other methods that will bring out the real merit of the managers.\n\nConclusions:\nI. It is important to bring out the real merit of the managers.\nII. The present training program does not bring out the real merit of the managers.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker calls for replacing the current training with methods that “will bring out the real merit of the managers.” This is both a value statement (merit is important) and a diagnostic critique (the present program fails to do this sufficiently), yielding two testable conclusions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A need exists to replace the current training program.
• The stated purpose of replacement: bring out real merit.
• Implied judgment that current training falls short on this objective.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I is the explicit objective; if the speaker centers replacement on revealing merit, importance is implied. Conclusion II follows because replacement is advocated precisely due to the present program’s inadequacy in bringing out that merit; otherwise replacement on that ground would not be necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The goal “bring out real merit” → I follows.2) If the present program already brought out real merit, no replacement for that reason would be needed → II follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Suppose the present program were excellent at revealing merit; then the motivation to replace for that very reason would not exist. Therefore, II is logically embedded in the recommendation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting only I or only II ignores the mutual reinforcement present in the statement; “neither” contradicts the explicit text.

Common Pitfalls:
Missing the implicit critique in a recommendation phrased around a specific deficiency.

Final Answer:
If both I and II follow.