Directions : In each of the following questions a statement is given, followed…

In statement-conclusion reasoning, a conclusion is valid only if it follows purely from what the statement itself states or implies, not from outside assumptions. When a statement describes an authority actively withholding or refusing something to people, that very act presupposes something is being withheld that people would otherwise seek - it points to an existing desire, not indifference.

The statement says governments "refuse" people personal liberty and the right to dissent. The word "refuse" denotes an active denial against people's will; such a denial is only meaningful if people would otherwise seek or value the right being denied. This directly establishes that people desire personal liberty and the right to dissent, so Conclusion II follows. Conclusion I, that people are indifferent to these rights, is contradicted by the same wording - if people were truly indifferent, governments would have nothing to actively refuse.

• Only conclusion I follows: wrongly reads the government's active refusal as proof that people do not care about the right, the opposite of what an active denial implies.

• Either I or II follows: would apply only if the statement's wording were neutral between the two readings, but the specific verb used favors one reading over the other.

• Neither I or II follows: overlooks that the statement's own wording directly establishes one of the two readings.

Testing the two conclusions against each other confirms this: indifference and desire are opposing readings of the same fact, and the statement's wording - active refusal - decides between them in favour of desire. So only conclusion II follows.