In this environmental reasoning question, two statements are given about water pollution and its causes. Treat both statements as true and decide which of the given conclusions, if any, logically follow: Statement I: The water pollutants are rising slowly and spoiling the sanctity of water. Statement II: The main cause of water pollution is industrialisation and lack of a sustainable approach towards the environment. Conclusions: (I) Industries are mixing all the left over slurries into nearby water bodies causing immense pollution. (II) Future generations need to be thought about before getting involved in pollution causing activities.

Introduction / Context:
This problem deals with water pollution and industrialisation. You are given two general statements about rising pollutants and the main causes of pollution. Then you are asked to check which conclusion about industrial behaviour and concern for future generations is logically supported by these statements.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: Water pollutants are rising slowly and spoiling the sanctity of water.
• Statement II: The main cause of water pollution is industrialisation and lack of a sustainable approach towards the environment.
• Conclusion I: Industries are mixing all left over slurries into nearby water bodies causing immense pollution.
• Conclusion II: Future generations need to be considered before engaging in pollution causing activities.
• The word main indicates a primary cause, not necessarily that every industry behaves in one extreme way.

Concept / Approach:
In statement and conclusion questions, we look for conclusions that are reasonably and directly suggested by the given information. Very specific statements about exact behaviour, such as all industries mixing every slurry into rivers, must have solid backing in the premises. Broader value based conclusions about sustainable thinking often follow when the statements highlight long term environmental harm and poor approaches to sustainability.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From the two statements we know that water quality is deteriorating and that the main reasons are industrialisation and lack of sustainable environmental practices. Step 2: Consider conclusion I, which says industries are mixing all the left over slurries into nearby water bodies. The statements do not mention slurry, mixing behaviour, or that all industries act in exactly this way. Step 3: It is possible that many industries discharge waste into water, but it is also possible that some pollution comes from air deposition, agricultural runoff, or badly treated effluents rather than direct dumping of all slurries. Thus the statements do not force conclusion I. Step 4: Consider conclusion II. If the main causes are industrialisation and lack of sustainable approach, then clearly current activities are harming the environment and spoiling water for the future. Step 5: It is reasonable and natural to infer that, to address this, people and industries should think about the interests of future generations before carrying out pollution causing activities. This conclusion flows from the idea of sustainability mentioned in the statements.

Verification / Alternative check:
Think in terms of policy guidance. The statements describe a situation where present practices are unsustainable and damaging. A standard conclusion drawn in such contexts is that decision makers must consider long term impacts on future generations. However, the specific claim that all industries are mixing all slurry into water bodies is a narrow, extreme behaviour that is not supported by the broad description of industrialisation as a main cause. Therefore, choosing only conclusion II as following fits the style of exam questions on course of action and environment.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B claims that both conclusions follow, but we have seen that conclusion I is too specific and not backed by the premises. Option C says that neither follows, ignoring the strong suggestion of sustainable thinking and care for future generations in the context of environmental damage. Option D picks only conclusion I, which is clearly unjustified. Option E suggests that exactly one of them follows without clarifying which; the exam expects you to identify conclusion II explicitly as the correct one.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to treat every real world plausible statement as a valid conclusion. While it is realistic that some industries dump waste into water, the logical question is whether the premises explicitly support that exact behaviour in the extreme way described. Another pitfall is to underestimate broad normative conclusions such as the need to think about future generations, which are often the intended inferences in environment and sustainability questions.

Final Answer:
The logically supported view is that only conclusion II follows from the given statements.