Statement:\nSealed tenders are invited from competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Tenders are invited only from experienced contractors.\nII. It is difficult to find competent tenderers in construction jobs.

Introduction / Context:
This is a Statement–Conclusion item about eligibility restrictions in a tender notice. The statement specifies that sealed tenders are invited “from competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.” We must test which conclusions are logically compelled without importing outside facts about the market or the agency’s intent beyond what is expressed.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The issuing authority invites sealed tenders.
• Eligibility is stated as “competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.”
• No claim is made about the broader difficulty of finding competent contractors in the industry.

Concept / Approach:
When a tender notice explicitly restricts invitations “from experienced contractors,” the plain reading is that only experienced contractors may submit. A restrictive qualifier attached to the invitation functions as an eligibility filter. However, a statement about the difficulty of finding competent contractors would require evidence about supply conditions in the market—evidence not present in the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Parse the restriction: “from competent contractors experienced …” = eligibility criterion.2) Conclusion I restates the restriction: only experienced contractors are invited → follows.3) Conclusion II asserts an industry-wide scarcity (“difficult to find competent tenders”). The statement is silent on market availability → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if competent contractors are abundant, the buyer might still set an experience filter to assure quality. Thus, the truth of the statement does not depend on scarcity, undermining Conclusion II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” or “Both” accept an unsupported scarcity claim. “Neither” ignores the clear eligibility restriction explicitly stated.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a quality filter (experience requirement) with an inference about market difficulty or shortage.

Final Answer:
If only Conclusion I follows.