Statement:\nThe government will hike royalty on crude oil and grant excise duty exemptions to North-East petroleum production.\n\nConclusions:\nI. There will be an additional burden on the national exchequer.\nII. There is intense competition for petroleum production in the North-East.

Introduction / Context:
Two fiscal changes are mentioned: a royalty increase (typically revenue-positive, often accruing to states) and an excise duty exemption (revenue-negative) for a region. The statement does not quantify net effects nor discuss competitive dynamics. We test each conclusion against what is strictly implied.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy A: crude oil royalty hike.
• Policy B: excise exemption for North-East petroleum output.
• No net fiscal impact is stated; no mention of competition.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (additional burden on the exchequer) is not compelled because one measure may offset the other; depending on volumes and rates, the net could be neutral or even positive. Conclusion II (intense competition) invents a market condition not referenced in the policy description; exemptions can aim at development, viability, or regional promotion, not necessarily competition.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Mixed fiscal measures with unknown magnitudes → net exchequer impact indeterminate → I does not follow.2) No text on competitive intensity → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine high royalty collections outweigh foregone excise, or vice versa—the statement remains true; hence we cannot deduce a burden. Likewise, the exemption could be to incentivize exploration rather than to battle competition.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” assumes at least one must be true; the premises do not require that. “Both” clearly overstates.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming policy intent (competition) or net fiscal effects without data.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II follows.