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) Children play in the playground.
(II) It gives them a different approach of problem solving and decision making.

Conclusions:
(I) Playing outdoor is very necessary for overall development of child.
(II) There should be balance between playing and studying for a child.

Let's critically test both conclusions directly using the explicit scope of the statements:
Conclusion I: The statements highlight that playing in playgrounds provides children with critical developmental skills like problem-solving and decision-making capabilities. This logically implies that outdoor play is key for the comprehensive development of a child. Thus, Conclusion I directly follows.

Conclusion II: The statements mention absolutely nothing regarding "studying" or maintaining a "balance between studying and playing". While this might be a sound life truth in general, it is completely out of the context of the provided premises. Thus, Conclusion II does not follow.

Hence, only conclusion I follows.