Statement — Gold demand fell in the first half due to rising prices, and the trend is likely to continue in the second half.\nConclusions:\nI. Customers are highly price-sensitive.\nII. There will be no improvement in demand in the second half.

Introduction / Context:
The statement provides a cause (rising prices) and an observed effect (lower demand), with a probabilistic outlook for continuation. We must separate firm inference from speculation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Price ↑ → demand ↓ in H1.
• Trend “likely” to continue in H2.

Concept / Approach:
From the cause–effect link we infer price sensitivity (I). However, “likely to continue” is not the same as certainty; thus claiming “no improvement” (absolute) in H2 overstates the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Translate: demand responds inversely to price → price sensitivity.2) Probabilistic language cannot justify a categorical prediction.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both: treat “likely” as “will definitely,” which the premise does not support. Neither: ignores the clear price-sensitivity inference.

Common Pitfalls:
Turning a forecast into a guarantee.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows.