Statements about toys and personality development: Statements: (I) Kids rejoice with toys and toys give them new opportunities to think in various ways. (II) Toys are non-living things that create a virtual world around kids to think and perceive in various ways. Conclusions: (I) If children do not play with toys, some part of their personality is underdeveloped. (II) Toys are a mandatory and undetachable part of their personality.

Introduction / Context:
This question explores how far we can stretch statements about the benefits of toys for children. The statements focus on the positive role toys play in stimulating thinking and perception. You are asked whether two stronger claims about underdeveloped personality and toys being “mandatory” follow logically. This tests your ability to distinguish between “helpful” and “absolutely necessary” based on given information.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement (I): Kids rejoice with toys and toys give them new opportunities to think in various ways.
Statement (II): Toys are non-living things that create a virtual world around kids to think and perceive in various ways.
Conclusion (I): If children do not play with toys, some part of their personality is underdeveloped.
Conclusion (II): Toys are a mandatory and undetachable part of their personality.
We treat the statements as true but may not assume more than is explicitly or strongly implied.

Concept / Approach:
The statements describe toys as beneficial tools for enjoyment and cognitive stimulation. However, the conclusions go further by claiming necessity and underdevelopment in their absence. Logical reasoning requires that such strong claims be supported directly by the premises. Merely saying something is helpful does not mean it is mandatory or that its absence inevitably causes underdevelopment.

Step-by-Step Solution:
From Statement (I), we learn that children enjoy toys and that toys provide new opportunities for thinking. From Statement (II), we add that toys, though non-living, create a virtual world that encourages kids to think and perceive in different ways. Together, these statements highlight the positive influence of toys on children's thinking and perception. Consider Conclusion (I): It claims that if children do not play with toys, some part of their personality is underdeveloped. Nowhere do the statements assert that toys are the only means of developing those aspects of personality, or that without toys this development cannot occur. The statements show that toys help, not that they are the sole or indispensable factor; therefore, Conclusion (I) is not logically forced. Consider Conclusion (II): It says toys are a “mandatory and undetachable” part of personality. The statements describe toys as external objects (non-living things) that influence thinking, not as permanent components of personality itself. Calling them “mandatory and undetachable” exaggerates their role well beyond what is stated. Therefore, Conclusion (II) also does not follow logically.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a child who grows up with limited or no access to toys but rich exposure to books, nature, sports or social interaction. Such a child could still develop a well-rounded personality, showing that the absence of toys does not automatically produce underdevelopment. Similarly, toys clearly can be put away or replaced; they are not permanent fixtures of personality. Hence both conclusions overreach the premises.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option claiming that one or both conclusions follow accepts unjustified generalisations. The premises never state that toys are strictly necessary, only that they are beneficial. Saying that exactly one conclusion follows “but cannot be determined which” is also incorrect, because we can clearly see that both conclusions introduce stronger ideas than the premises support.

Common Pitfalls:
Many test-takers equate “important” with “indispensable” and assume that because toys are useful, they must be mandatory. Another pitfall is reading personal beliefs about child psychology into the question; logical reasoning requires you to stay within the explicit content of the statements.

Final Answer:
Neither conclusion logically follows from the given statements. The correct option is Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows.