Statement:\nVegetable prices are soaring in the market.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Vegetables are becoming a rare commodity.\nII. People cannot eat vegetables.

Introduction / Context:
The premise reports a price rise. Price movements reflect demand-supply dynamics, costs, or market structure, but a mere statement of higher prices does not, by itself, prove rarity or impossibility of consumption.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observation: vegetable prices are soaring.
• No data on supply levels, availability, or consumer income.
• No assertion that consumption has become impossible.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (rarity) would require evidence of low availability relative to demand; higher prices can arise from many factors (transport costs, seasonal patterns, speculation) without scarcity at the retail shelf. Conclusion II (people cannot eat vegetables) is a very strong claim not supported by a price rise alone; affordability varies by consumer and by degree of price change.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify that the statement is descriptive (price level), not diagnostic (cause) or prescriptive (effect on diets).2) Recognize that both rarity and impossibility of consumption require additional premises not provided.3) Therefore, neither conclusion follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even during temporary spikes, markets often continue to clear at higher prices; some consumers substitute, some reduce quantity, but the statement does not claim universal cessation of consumption.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting I or II assumes facts not in evidence. Choosing either implies that a price level statement is sufficient to conclude scarcity or impossibility.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating price with physical availability and inferring absolute behavioral outcomes from relative price changes.

Final Answer:
If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.