Critical Reasoning — Public Appeal and Predictable Outcomes Statement: • The police commissioner appealed to the public not to put up banners that obstruct pedestrian or motor traffic. What can be concluded with certainty?

Introduction / Context:
The prompt features an appeal by the police commissioner asking people to refrain from erecting banners that obstruct traffic. We must evaluate which conclusion logically follows from such an appeal.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• An official, public appeal is issued to citizens.
• Purpose: prevent obstructions to pedestrian or vehicular flow.
• No explicit operational plan (e.g., surveillance or monitoring) is mentioned.

Concept / Approach:
From an appeal, a minimal, reasonable expectation is that at least some people may respond positively. However, operational steps like “policemen will have to keep a watchful eye” introduce new logistics not contained in the statement. We should pick the conclusion that is directly supported without adding extra assumptions.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Appeals are often issued with the assumption that citizens can change behavior voluntarily. Surveillance or active monitoring is a separate decision, not logically entailed by the appeal.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Either / Both: all rely on assuming operational steps not given.
• Neither: too strong; it denies the minimal, reasonable effect of an appeal.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing advisory communication with enforcement plans; adding unstated policy measures.

Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows