Statements:\n1) A temple is a place of worship.\n2) A church is also a place of worship.\nConclusions:\nI) Hindus and Christians use the same place for worship.\nII) All churches are temples.

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic syllogism-style item: two statements define “temple” and “church” as places of worship. Conclusions then propose relationships between the two institutions and their users. We must test only what is logically compelled by the premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Temple → place of worship.
• Church → place of worship.
• No statement equates temples and churches or their congregations.

Concept / Approach:
From “X is a place of worship” and “Y is a place of worship,” it does not follow that X = Y or that both are used by the same people. Similarly, calling both “places of worship” does not allow us to reclassify “church” as a kind of “temple.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Recognize both are members of a broader class (places of worship).2) Class membership alone does not imply identity or subset relations.3) Therefore Conclusion I (same place) and Conclusion II (all churches are temples) are unwarranted.

Verification / Alternative check:
Counterexample: a temple and a church may exist on different sites, serving different faiths, yet both are places of worship—invalidating I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I,” “Only II,” “Both,” and “Either” all assume relations not provided in the premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “share a super-category” with “are the same” or “one is a subset of the other.”

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion I nor II follows.