Market Action and Criticism — Interpreting Policy from Reactions Statement: • The Bank of England's auction of 25 metric tons of gold drew many bargain-seeking bidders but was criticised by major gold producers worldwide. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Introduction / Context:
We must evaluate two prescriptive conclusions from a report: one central bank auctioned gold; producers criticised it; there was strong bidding. Do these facts justify policy prescriptions about not auctioning or urging bidders to quote higher prices?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Auction happened; attracted many bidders.
• Major producers criticised the move.
• No explicit intent of the Bank regarding international price stability is stated.
• No instruction or expectation about bidders’ pricing behavior is given.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“The Bank should not auction gold to keep prices steady”) adds a policy goal not stated and assumes causation between the auction and global price instability. Conclusion II (“Bidders should quote higher prices to retain present value”) assigns responsibility to bidders to manage international price levels, which is not implied by the report.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if auctions can influence prices, the statement alone does not specify objectives or outcomes needed to justify either conclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Either / Both: each imports objectives and duties not in the statement.

Common Pitfalls:
Inferring policy imperatives from stakeholder reactions; assuming markets ought to behave to preserve prices.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows