Interpreting a philosophical claim – What really follows? Statement: “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” Determine which conclusion is logically supported.

Introduction / Context:
The sentence is a classic expression of intellectual humility (often associated with Socratic thought). The speaker claims personal ignorance, not a universal thesis about the scope of all human knowledge. We must choose between: I) The writer’s knowledge is very poor. II) The world of knowledge is too vast for one person to explore fully.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Speaker asserts self-ignorance (“I know nothing except my ignorance”).
• There is no explicit statement about the total scope of knowledge in the world.
• We should avoid attributing a broad epistemic thesis without textual support.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I paraphrases the speaker’s self-assessment, i.e., poor knowledge. Conclusion II introduces a universal claim about the vastness of knowledge—a plausible thought, but not stated or implied as the reason for the claim.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:

Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows