Statement:\n“A room with flowers looks beautiful.”\nConclusions:\nI. Flowers are grown for decorating rooms.\nII. A room without flowers looks ugly.

Introduction / Context:
The premise praises one sufficient condition for beauty: having flowers improves a room’s appearance. We must not overread it into statements about purpose or exclusivity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Adding flowers makes a room look beautiful.
• No claim is made about why flowers are grown.
• No claim is made that rooms without flowers must be ugly.

Concept / Approach:
From “X makes Y beautiful,” we cannot infer “X is the purpose of Z,” nor “not-X makes Y ugly.” Those would respectively be claims about intent and necessity, neither of which is stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Many reasons exist to grow flowers (agriculture, perfume, ecology). The premise says nothing about primary purpose → does not follow.2) II: The negation is not implied; a room may be beautiful without flowers via other decor → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “rooms are beautiful only with flowers,” II might be testable; it does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that admits I or II imports intent or necessity not present.

Common Pitfalls:
Illicitly converting sufficiency to necessity; assuming unique purpose from a single benefit.

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows