In this question below, some statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer-

Statements:
Only a few Edition is investors
All investors are verdict.
No verdict is affect
Conclusions:
I. No edition is affect
II. All investors being affect is a possibility

Step-by-step Explanation:

To determine which of the conclusions logically follow from the given statements, we can analyze the relationships using set theory or Venn diagrams.

1. Analyze the Statements:
- "Only a few Edition is investors": This statement implies two things:
a) Some part of Edition is Investors ($\text{Edition}\cap \text{Investors}\ne \varnothing$).
b) Some part of Edition is definitely NOT Investors ($\text{Edition}\backslash \text{Investors}\ne \varnothing$).
- "All investors are verdict": This means the set of Investors is entirely contained within the set of Verdict ($\text{Investors}\subseteq \text{Verdict}$).
- "No verdict is affect": This means the set of Verdict and the set of Affect are completely disjoint ($\text{Verdict}\cap \text{Affect}=\varnothing$). Since all Investors are Verdict, this also means no Investors can be Affect ($\text{Investors}\cap \text{Affect}=\varnothing$).

2. Evaluate Conclusion I: "No edition is affect"
- We know that some Edition is Investors, and since all Investors are Verdict, that overlapping part of Edition is also Verdict.
- Since no Verdict is Affect, the overlapping part of Edition (which is inside Verdict) cannot be Affect. Thus, we can conclude "Some Edition is not Affect".
- However, we do not have any information that prevents the remaining part of Edition (which is outside Verdict) from overlapping with Affect. Therefore, a complete separation between Edition and Affect ("No edition is affect") is not definitely true.
- Hence, Conclusion I does not follow.

3. Evaluate Conclusion II: "All investors being affect is a possibility"
- We are given that "All investors are verdict" and "No verdict is affect".
- This means no Investor can ever be Affect.
- Therefore, it is impossible for all Investors to be Affect.
- Hence, Conclusion II does not follow.

Conclusion:
Since neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows, the correct option is "If neither conclusion I nor II follows".