Statement:\nBritain has formalised plans to recruit Asian and Black police officers from abroad—especially from India—to fill a growing manpower shortage.\nConclusions:\nI. Britain lacks efficient domestic manpower to meet policing demand.\nII. Indian police service conditions and legal framework are almost akin to Britain’s.

Introduction / Context:
The statement mentions a plan to recruit officers from abroad due to a manpower shortage. We must test whether claims about “efficiency” of locals or legal similarity between countries necessarily follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There is a manpower shortage in Britain’s police.
• Recruitment from abroad (notably India) is planned.
• No details are given about efficiency or legal equivalence.

Concept / Approach:
A shortage does not imply that available domestic manpower is “inefficient.” It may be insufficient in number, or there may be recruitment pipeline constraints. Likewise, recruiting from India does not prove that service conditions and laws are “almost akin” to Britain’s; similarity may help onboarding, but it is not stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I uses “efficient,” a stronger claim than “insufficient supply”; the statement speaks only about quantity shortage, not efficiency → I does not follow.2) II introduces legal/administrative similarity; the statement gives no such premise → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had added “domestic candidates are inefficient,” I would follow; likewise, if it stated equivalence of laws, II would follow. Neither is present.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Only II / Either: each imports unstated specifics.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming motives behind international recruitment without textual basis.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II follows