In this statement and conclusion question about retail shops and customer behaviour, two statements are given. You must treat the statements as true and decide which of the conclusions I and II logically follow from them. Statement I: Retail shops increasingly want to retain potential buyers. Statement II: Ten percent of the customers are lost due to out of stock products. Conclusion I: People do not find their required size or specific colour in stock and then leave the store without purchasing anything. Conclusion II: Retailers want the maximum possible number of visitors to convert into actual purchases.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your ability to draw logical conclusions from a small business oriented scenario. You are told that retail shops care about retaining potential buyers and that a fixed percentage of customers are lost due to products being out of stock. Based on this, you must decide whether specific reasons for stockouts can be inferred and whether retailers desire maximum conversion of visitors into buyers.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement I: Retail shops want to retain potential buyers, which indicates a general desire to convert visitors into paying customers and reduce lost sales.
- Statement II: Ten percent of customers are lost because certain products are out of stock.
- Conclusion I: Customers fail to find their size or preferred colour and therefore leave without buying anything.
- Conclusion II: Retailers want as many people as possible who enter the shop to end up purchasing something, so they seek maximum conversion of footfall into sales.

Concept / Approach:
We must distinguish between what is definitely implied by a statement and what is just one possible explanation. Statement II mentions out of stock products but does not specify whether the problem is size, colour, or some other attribute. Therefore, any conclusion that specifies a particular type of stock problem goes beyond the data. Meanwhile, Statement I directly supports the idea that retailers want higher conversion of visitors into buyers, which is essentially what Conclusion II states.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Interpret Statement I. If retail shops want to retain potential buyers, they want visitors who enter the shop to stay and eventually purchase instead of leaving without buying. Step 2: This desire to retain potential buyers is the same as wanting a high conversion rate from footfall to sales, which is the core idea of Conclusion II. Step 3: Interpret Statement II. Ten percent of customers are lost due to out of stock products. This tells us that some items that customers want are not available, but it does not specify exactly what aspect is missing. Step 4: Conclusion I specifies that customers do not find their size or preferred colour. However, Statement II only says that products are out of stock, which can be due to many reasons, such as the entire item being unavailable, wrong model, or even a discontinued product. Step 5: Because Statement II does not restrict the unavailability to size or colour alone, Conclusion I is only one possible explanation, not a logically necessary conclusion. Step 6: On the other hand, Conclusion II is a direct restatement of the motivation in Statement I. If shops want to retain potential buyers, they naturally want maximum footfall to convert into purchases.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider whether it is possible that customers are lost due to out of stock products of a different nature, such as lack of a particular brand or model, rather than size or colour. This is clearly possible and still consistent with Statement II, which shows that Conclusion I is not forced. However, it is hard to imagine a shop that wants to retain potential buyers but does not want maximum conversion of visitors into purchasers, so Conclusion II is strongly supported by the basic business logic expressed in Statement I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B says both conclusions follow, but Conclusion I adds specific details not given in the statements. Option C says neither follows, ignoring the direct link between Statement I and Conclusion II. Option D says only Conclusion I follows, which is incorrect because Conclusion I relies on an extra assumption. Option E is incorrect because Conclusion II is very clearly supported, so it is not doubtful at all.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to treat a likely explanation as a logically certain conclusion. Exam questions of this type require conclusions that are necessarily true, not just plausible. Always ask yourself whether you can construct a scenario that satisfies the statements but makes the proposed conclusion false. If you can, then the conclusion does not follow logically.

Final Answer:
The correct option is Only conclusion II follows, because it directly reflects the intention of retail shops to convert as many visitors as possible into buyers, while Conclusion I adds unnecessary and unsupported details about size and colour.