Two statements are followed by three Conclusions I, II and III. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You are to decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn from the given statements and indicate your answer accordingly. Statements: I. Milk supply in Maharashtra was badly hit after thousands of dairy farmers launched a protest on Monday, demanding better price and subsidy of Rs 5 per litre. Tankers supplying milk to major cities including Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, Nashik and others were blocked early morning leading to sudden crisis.  II. The agriculture ministry had mooted a proposal asking railways to make milk available at railway stations and at the meeting, sources said representatives from Amul India suggested that the national transporter could provide stalls to dairy companies or cooperatives where they could sell their products.  Conclusions: I. Representatives of Amul India and food safety body FSSAI are willing to discuss issues and concerns of the dairy sector in the backdrop of the farmers agitation in Maharashtra that had led to severe shortage of milk in the state.  II. The farmers' groups and Maharashtra Kisan Sabha, are demanding a GST waiver on butter and milk powder apart from the subsidy. III. Railways is drawing up a plan to make milk available at railway stations across the country to promote its consumption.?

Option 1 : Only conclusion 3 follows

The correct answer is option 1, i.e. Only conclusion 3 follows.

In this type of question, conclusion is not specifically mentioned. It needs to be deduced from the given statements.

From both the statements, we infer that Maharashtra has been badly affected because of the protest by farmers and as a result the agriculture ministry is planning to establish milk booths at railway stations.

On the basis of the conclusions mentioned, we can reject both first and second conclusion as they are vague. On the basis of the two statements, we cannot conclude any information regarding the FSSAI and the fact that farmers are demanding a GST waiver. We know that they are protesting but the reason is not explicitly mentioned. As we cannot conclude anything which is not mentioned thus, both first and second conclusions can be rejected.

Conclusion 3 is a very general conclusion that can be made on the basis of the information provided in the two statements, thus, we can mark it as a suitable conclusion.

Thus, the most correct answer choice is option 1 and rest of the options can be rejected.