Statements and conclusions – young scientists, open-mindedness and superstition: Statements: (I) All young scientists are open-minded. (II) No open-minded men are superstitious. Conclusions: (I) No scientist is superstitious. (II) No young people are superstitious.

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question involves statements about “young scientists,” “open-minded men” and superstition. You must decide whether each of the given conclusions necessarily follows. The trap here is to overgeneralise from specific subgroups (young scientists, open-minded men) to broader groups (all scientists, all young people).

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement (I): All young scientists are open-minded.
Statement (II): No open-minded men are superstitious.
Conclusion (I): No scientist is superstitious.
Conclusion (II): No young people are superstitious.
We assume that “young scientists” are a subset of scientists and of young people, and that the word “men” in Statement (II) restricts the scope to male individuals who are open-minded.

Concept / Approach:
We must track set relationships carefully. Statement (I) gives a relationship only for the subset of scientists who are young. Statement (II) covers open-minded men but does not speak about all open-minded people, nor about women. Conclusions (I) and (II) broaden the claim to all scientists and all young people, which may or may not be justified by the given premises.

Step-by-Step Solution:
From Statement (I): Young scientists ⊂ open-minded individuals. From Statement (II): Among men, any who are open-minded are not superstitious. Combining these, we can say that any young scientist who is male is open-minded and, by Statement (II), not superstitious. However, Statement (I) does not say that all scientists are young. There may be older scientists for whom we are given no information about open-mindedness or superstition. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no scientist at all is superstitious; Conclusion (I) is too broad. Similarly, Statement (I) only speaks about “young scientists,” not all young people. Statement (II) only covers open-minded men, not all young people in general. There may be young non-scientists, young women, or young men who are not open-minded for whom no information is given. Thus we cannot conclude that no young person is superstitious; Conclusion (II) is also too broad.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a scenario: suppose all young male scientists are open-minded and not superstitious, satisfying both statements. At the same time, imagine an older scientist who is superstitious; this does not violate any given statement, so Conclusion (I) fails. Likewise, consider a young non-scientist who is superstitious; this is also compatible with the statements, so Conclusion (II) fails as a necessary conclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing Conclusion (I) or (II) alone, or both together, incorrectly generalises the premises to groups not covered by them. The option hinting that at least one conclusion follows but we cannot say which is also incorrect, because we can explicitly construct counterexamples for both conclusions while still respecting the statements.

Common Pitfalls:
A typical mistake is to ignore qualifiers like “young” and “men” and mentally read the statements as applying to all scientists or all people. Another pitfall is to assume that properties of a subset extend automatically to the whole set, which is not logically valid without explicit support.

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