In the following question, two statements are given each followed by two conclusions I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements. Statements:(I) The sowing of winter crops has been completed in $87\%$ of the seasonal area and its above normal this time.(II) Plantation of rice is lagging by $30\%$ due to lower area covered in the southern states of Tamil Nadu. Conclusions:(I) It is considered as delay because the potential of sowing is not completely utilized.(II) Cultivation is based upon timings.

Let's evaluate both conclusions based strictly on the provided statements: Conclusion I: The statements highlight that rice plantation is lagging due to lower area coverage, and winter crop sowing is finished in $87\%$ of the area. There is no explicit logic provided in the premise to establish that a failure to fully utilize $100\%$ of sowing potential is universally categorized as a "delay". Hence, Conclusion I does not logically follow.Conclusion II: The statements discuss a specific seasonal progress status ("winter crops", "lagging by $30\%$ ") representing specific data points at a given time frame. They do not outline or support a generalized rule stating that "cultivation is based upon timings". Thus, Conclusion II does not logically follow.Since neither conclusion can be logically derived from the given premises, Neither I nor II follow is correct.