It is mentioned in the statement that India's economy depends mainly on forests. This means that forests should be preserved. So, I follows. But, that only preservation of forests can improve the economy, cannot be said. So, II does not follow.
Clearly, the statement talks of Company X only and no other company. So, I does not follow. Also, it is mentioned that one can take a good shot even in bad weather conditions with a camera of Company X. So, II follows.
The statement does not talk against the auction but only speaks of the response it received from the bidders and gold producers. So, I does not follow. The phrase 'plenty of bidders looking for a bargain' is quite contrary to II. So, II also does not follow.
That more emphasis should be laid on productivity areas instead of sciences does not mean that the country has achieved sufficient progress in sciences. But it implies that productivity factor was previously being neglected. So, II follows while I does not.
The statement declares enactment of OSA as the direct cause of increase in corruption. So, I follows. However, enactment of an act by a government is undertaken for betterment and not with the intention of encouraging corruption though whatever may be the outcome later on. So, II does not follow.
Clearly, the statement declares dowry as an evil practice and reflects its demerits. Thus, conclusion I follows. Also, it is given that those who take dowry dishonour womanhood. This implies that those who do not take dowry respect womanhood. So, II also follows.