Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "After this amendment to the Constitution, no child below the age of 14 years will be employed to work in any factory or mine, or engaged in any other hazardous employment." Which of the following conclusions logically follows from the statement above?

Introduction / Context:
This critical-reasoning problem tests whether you can distinguish what is explicitly implied by a legal statement from what is merely tempting background inference. The statement announces a constitutional amendment restricting child employment under 14 in hazardous work.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The amendment applies prospectively, from the time it becomes effective.
• It specifically refers to hazardous contexts (factory, mine, or similar employment).
• Two conclusions are under evaluation: (I) such children were employed before; (II) employers are now bound to comply.

Concept / Approach:
In syllogistic terms, we must see which conclusions are logically compelled. A new constitutional rule creates a binding obligation after enactment. However, a new rule does not by itself prove that the opposite condition existed before. Laws may codify, clarify, or strengthen prior norms.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Conclusion I: "Before this amendment, children below 14 were employed in factories or mines." The statement does not assert historic facts; it only states what will be prohibited henceforth. Therefore I is not forced.Assess Conclusion II: "The employers must now abide by the amendment." A constitutional amendment is binding law; compliance is obligatory. Therefore II follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
If laws were not binding, amendments would be meaningless. Conversely, the existence of a new rule does not necessarily establish prior widespread violations.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I only / Both: include a historical claim not proved by the text.
• Either I or II: both are not mutually exclusive alternatives, and only II follows.
• Neither: ignores the binding nature of constitutional law.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not treat "new rule" as proof that the opposite was permitted earlier; legal changes can also be clarifications or reiterations.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion II follows