Statement:\nUnder a new strategy in State X, articles made of non-reusable plastic (forks, spoons, cords/strings, sheets, mats) and distribution of newspapers/periodicals in plastic wrappers have been banned as an environment-cleaning initiative.\nConclusions:\nI. Most people of State X will be satisfied with the initiative.\nII. Most people of State X will not be satisfied with the initiative.

Introduction / Context:
The statement describes a policy ban targeting non-reusable plastics. It does not include any survey or reaction data. We test whether mass public satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) can be concluded.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ban scope is specified.
• No sentiment, polling, or feedback is given.

Concept / Approach:
Both conclusions I and II are mirror-image claims about “most people.” The text offers no evidence for either majority sentiment. Therefore neither follows.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify that both I and II are extra-textual assertions about public opinion.2) The statement is policy-descriptive only; it lacks any popularity metric.3) Hence, neither I nor II is a necessary inference.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had reported survey findings (“most citizens welcomed/criticised”), one of the conclusions might follow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Only II / Either: each presumes sentiment not provided.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting one’s own view about plastic bans onto the population.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows