Statement: Should the state government be allowed to retain major shares of…

In Statement-and-Conclusion questions built on a debatable policy question ("Should...?"), each offered conclusion is not a fact automatically entailed by the statement -- it is a competing line of reasoning offered in answer to that question. A conclusion follows only when it supplies a substantiated reason tied to the real-world consequence named in the statement, not merely a general want. When two conclusions give contradictory yes/no answers, only the one built on a concrete, directly relevant justification is treated as the valid takeaway; a generic assertion of need does not carry the same weight.

Conclusion I -- "No, the Central Government should receive the major share as most of the developmental programmes are funded by the Central Government" -- ties the recommendation directly to who actually bears the cost of development: since the Centre funds most development work, retaining the major share of tax revenue is the concrete resource it needs to keep meeting that responsibility. This is a specific, substantiated reason that follows. Conclusion II -- "Yes, most of the State Governments are short of funds and they badly need more funds" -- only states that states want more money. Financial need alone, without tying that need to who is actually responsible for funding development or how the money would be used, is too generic to establish an entitlement to the major share -- nearly every level of government could make an identical claim.

• "Only conclusion II follows" fails because it elevates a bare statement of financial need to the level of a decisive reason, without addressing the funding-responsibility link that Conclusion I supplies.

• "Either I or II follows" fails because it treats the two conclusions as equally substantiated alternatives; they are not -- one is tied to a concrete funding responsibility, the other to a general want.

• "Both I and II follow" fails because I and II give opposite (Yes/No) answers to the same question; two directly contradictory conclusions cannot both be valid takeaways at once.

Therefore, only Conclusion I follows.