Statement:\nFor over three decades, the government of country X has tried to raise per-capita income. Despite an intelligent ministerial team and expert bureaucrats, the objective has not been achieved.\nConclusions:\nI. Strong willpower and dedication are more important than knowledge and expertise.\nII. Without restricting population growth, it is impossible to improve per-capita income.

Introduction / Context:
The statement reports a policy failure (raising per-capita income) over a long period despite the presence of intelligent and expert officials. From this, we must test two explanatory conclusions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Long-term effort by government to raise per-capita income.
• Team described as intelligent and expert.
• The target remains unmet.
• Nothing is stated about willpower, dedication, or demographic trends.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I promotes an evaluative thesis (willpower > expertise) not present in the text; the text does not compare qualities or assert a deficiency of will/dedication. Conclusion II introduces population growth as a necessary condition; the statement does not mention demographics or suggest that controlling population is the only route to improving per-capita income.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Failure alongside expertise does not logically imply a lack of willpower/dedication or that these are “more important.” → I does not follow.2) Absence of explicit demographic linkage means we cannot deduce the necessity claimed in II → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “despite adequate willpower we failed, therefore demographics must be addressed,” II might follow. Or if it contrasted willpower with expertise, I might follow. Neither is provided.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: each adduces causes not specified in the text.

Common Pitfalls:
Supplying personal theories about economic growth, demographics, or governance in place of textual necessity.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows