Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "The TV staff deserves applause for showing booth capturing." What, if anything, follows from this?

Introduction / Context:
Commendation of media for exposing malpractice does not automatically reveal the broader aims of television or the legal outcomes for offenders. We must keep to what the sentence guarantees.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The TV staff showed booth capture and deserves applause.
• Conclusion I: TV aims to show things in their true perspective.
• Conclusion II: The culprits have been identified and are being tried by law.

Concept / Approach:
Praise for a single act does not prove a universal mission statement (I) nor confirm subsequent legal proceedings (II). The statement contains neither the network’s overarching purpose nor judicial updates.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I fails: From "deserves applause," you cannot deduce TV's general aim; the praise could be for a one-off investigative success.II fails: Exposure on TV does not guarantee identification, arrest, or trial; those outcomes depend on police and judiciary, which are not mentioned.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct scenarios where TV aired footage, yet legal identification was pending or failed; the initial praise still stands, showing II is not entailed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I only / II only / Both: each adds content not present in the premise.
• Either I or II: neither is logically forced.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not read institutional mission or legal consequences into a simple commendation.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows