Introduction / Context:
The statement asserts long-term, total involvement in a specific technical domain. We must evaluate: (I) the company still needs to learn basic things; (II) dedication is more important than knowledge and expertise. Only inferences grounded in the statement should be accepted.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Company X: three decades of total involvement in energy conservation, efficient use, and management.
- Conclusion I: The company has yet to acquire basic knowledge in this area.
- Conclusion II: Dedication matters more than knowledge/expertise.
Concept / Approach:
- Longevity and total involvement suggest significant experience, not lack of basics.
- The statement contains no value judgment comparing dedication with expertise; it merely reports involvement duration and scope.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Conclusion I contradicts the implication of sustained, focused work; it does not follow.Conclusion II introduces an evaluative claim absent from the statement; it does not follow.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if dedication exists, we cannot infer its relative importance versus knowledge. Likewise, three decades of involvement do not imply ignorance of basics.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option asserting I or II reads in content not present. Hence only 'Neither' is correct.
Common Pitfalls:
Drawing evaluative or comparative conclusions from a purely descriptive statement.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows
Discussion & Comments