Statements:\nI. Science has brought gadgets associated with happiness, prosperity, and wealth.\nII. Science has not solved the problems of overpopulation.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Overpopulation is due to unscientific thinking.\nII. Science has not helped world peace.

Introduction / Context:
The pair of statements contrasts technological benefits with a persistent societal problem. The task is to avoid importing external narratives about causes of overpopulation or world peace and to stick to what is strictly supported by the text.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Science has delivered material benefits (gadgets, prosperity-related tools).
• Overpopulation remains unsolved by science.
• No claim is made about the root causes of overpopulation.
• No claim is made about science’s role in peace or conflict.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I alleges a specific cause (unscientific thinking) for overpopulation. The premises only say science has not solved the problem; they do not specify why the problem exists. Conclusion II makes a sweeping claim about world peace that the premises never address. Therefore, neither conclusion is entailed.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the scope: benefits delivered vs one problem left unsolved.2) Check Conclusion I: cause attribution is absent → does not follow.3) Check Conclusion II: peace dimension is not mentioned → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if science had helped peace or hindered it, the truth of the given statements would be unchanged; thus Conclusion II is independent and ungrounded in the text.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that accept I or II import external causal claims not present in the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Overextending premises to fit common debates (e.g., technology vs society) rather than the given logical content.

Final Answer:
Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.