Public administration reasoning — infer from a Commissioner’s pledge Statement: • Municipal Commissioner of city Z: “My first and foremost task is to beautify this city. If city X and city Y can do it, why can we not do it?” Conclusions to evaluate: I. People of city Z are unaware of the current ugliness of their city. II. The present Commissioner has worked in city X and city Y and has good experience of beautifying cities.

Introduction / Context:Leaders often make aspirational statements comparing their city with others that have succeeded. The Commissioner’s remark is a pledge and a motivational comparison. We must check whether two specific claims about public awareness and the Commissioner’s past postings follow from the remark.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A promise to beautify city Z.
• A comparison: since cities X and Y achieved beautification, city Z should also be able to do it.
• No statements about citizens’ awareness.
• No career history of the Commissioner is provided.

Concept / Approach:Motivational comparisons cannot be stretched into facts about peoples awareness or the speaker’s resume. Use strict necessity: only those consequences which are inescapable from the words should be accepted.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:The Commissioner could have learned about X and Y from reports or media. Citizens may be fully aware or even have demanded action already. Both conclusions are compatible but not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: each adds details not contained in the pledge.
• Either or Both: neither is compelled by the wording.

Common Pitfalls:Reading intent and example as evidence of biography or public ignorance.

Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows