Statement:\nPersons on the waiting list could finally get berth reservations in the Rajdhani Express.\n\nConclusions:\nI. Wait-listed passengers generally find it difficult to get berths in the Rajdhani Express.\nII. The number of berths available in the Rajdhani Express is small.

Introduction / Context:
The statement notes that wait-listed passengers “finally” obtained berths. The adverb suggests a delay or difficulty before success. However, it does not quantify total capacity in the train, nor does it compare the berth count to demand. We must assess which conclusion is a necessary inference.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some wait-listed passengers ultimately secured berths.
• The wording “finally” implies a non-trivial wait/difficulty prior to confirmation.
• No data on train capacity or absolute berth numbers.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I generalizes that wait-listed passengers “generally” face difficulty getting berths. The text supports a tendency to difficulty (implied by “finally”) rather than ease, making I a reasonable inference about the usual experience of WL passengers. Conclusion II claims that the number of berths is small—a capacity statement not derivable from the information given; high demand could cause wait lists even with large capacity.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Interpret “finally” as indicating prior difficulty.2) Therefore, I follows as a general tendency for WL passengers.3) Capacity size is not addressed; WL occurs whenever demand initially exceeds supply, regardless of absolute berth count → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even premium trains with many berths can generate long wait lists during peak seasons; thus II is not compelled by the statement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” or “Both” add an unsupported capacity claim; “Neither” ignores the textual cue embedded in “finally.”

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing relative scarcity (demand vs. supply at a given time) with absolute scarcity (small capacity).

Final Answer:
If only Conclusion I follows.