Statement: The old order changed yielding place to new. Conclusions: I. Change…

Concept: In statement-conclusion reasoning, a conclusion is judged to 'follow' only if it can be logically derived purely from the words of the statement, without bringing in outside assumptions, general opinions, or value judgments not actually stated.

Application: The statement describes an instance of change -- an old order being replaced by a new one. Conclusion I, 'Change is the law of nature,' is simply a general restatement of the very fact the statement illustrates -- that change occurs -- so it follows directly, with no extra assumption needed. Conclusion II, 'Discard old ideas because they are old,' goes beyond what the statement says: the statement only records that a change happened, it never prescribes that old ideas should be rejected merely for being old. That is an unstated value judgment, so II does not follow.

Cross-check: If II were treated as following, the statement would have to endorse discarding-by-age, which it never does. If I were treated as not following, that would wrongly reject a claim that is nothing more than a restatement of the statement's own content. So exactly one of the two conclusions holds up under this test.

Hence, 'Only conclusion I follows' is the conclusion that logically follows from the statement.