Statement:\n“The Sun is a source of light.”\nConclusions:\nI. The Moon is not a source of light.\nII. Light has only one source.

Introduction / Context:
The statement acknowledges the Sun as a source of light. It does not address other bodies or exclusivity. We test whether conclusions about the Moon or uniqueness of sources necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sun → source of light.
• No assertion of exclusivity (“only source”).
• No claim about the Moon.

Concept / Approach:
From “A is a source,” we cannot infer “B is not a source,” nor “A is the only source.” Both conclusions import content not present in the premise.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: The premise does not evaluate the Moon’s status; stating it is not a source is unjustified → does not follow.2) II: The premise does not claim uniqueness; other sources may exist → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the statement been “the Sun is the only source of light,” II would follow; it is not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Admitting I or II moves beyond the text.

Common Pitfalls:
Illicitly converting a particular affirmative (“some A are B”) into a universal (“only A are B”).

Final Answer:
if neither Conclusion I nor II follows