Statement: To spur commercial transactions with India and encourage bilateral trade, the Prime Minister of Thailand announced a bilateral treaty related to multipurpose projects. Conclusions: I. The trade volume between India and Thailand is likely to increase next year. II. Every country needs to sign an MoU with another country to boost bilateral trade.

Introduction / Context:
The statement describes a policy action (a bilateral treaty) whose stated aim is to encourage trade. We must decide which conclusions necessarily follow. Typically, purpose-linked policy announcements justify a reasonable expectation about the direction of trade but do not license universal generalizations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A bilateral treaty is announced to encourage trade.
• Specific countries: India and Thailand.
• No claim is made about what every country must do.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“trade likely to increase”) is a reasonable and direct inference because the treaty’s purpose is to enhance trade; while not guaranteed, “likely” is consistent with the announced aim. Conclusion II converts a specific policy choice into a universal necessity for all countries, which the statement does not assert; hence II does not follow.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Treaty to encourage trade → reasonable expectation of higher bilateral trade → I follows.2) “Every country needs an MoU to boost trade” is an overgeneralization → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Countries can boost trade via many channels (tariff reforms, logistics, standards cooperation) without MoUs; this confirms II’s overreach.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” accepts an unwarranted universal. “Either” is wrong because I has clear support. “Neither” ignores the treaty’s explicit pro-trade intent.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “policy taken for X” as “universal requirement for X.”

Final Answer:
If only conclusion I follows.