Statement: Philanthropists, driven by human compassion and a zeal to help the needy, have contributed to human welfare in every society.\nConclusions:\nI) Rich persons are philanthropists.\nII) Poor people cannot act as philanthropists.

Introduction / Context:
This verbal-reasoning problem asks whether extra claims about who can be a philanthropist logically follow from a general statement praising philanthropy. The stem speaks about what philanthropists (whoever they may be) do; it does not define who qualifies to be one based on wealth or poverty.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Philanthropists act out of compassion and zeal to help the needy.
• They contribute to welfare in every society.
• No information is given about the income, assets, or social class of philanthropists.

Concept / Approach:
In statement–conclusion questions, we must test whether the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the given statement when taken as true. Any conclusion that adds new qualifiers (e.g., “rich only,” “poor never”) must be rejected unless compelled by the wording.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The statement does not say “all philanthropists are rich” or “only the rich can be philanthropists.” Therefore, Conclusion I is not implicit.2) The statement does not exclude poor individuals from being philanthropists. People with limited means can still donate time, skills, or small resources. Hence, Conclusion II is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
If we attempt to interpret “philanthropy” narrowly as large monetary giving, we would be adding unstated constraints. The test forbids importing such assumptions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I,” “Only II,” or “Both” each adds an unsupported wealth criterion. “None of these” is unnecessary because option (c) already captures the correct evaluation.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating philanthropy exclusively with high net worth; ignoring non-monetary dimensions of giving and social contribution.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.