Final answer:
Only conclusion 1 that suggests devising methods to increase the readership of newspapers follows logically because it directly addresses the issue mentioned in the statement. Conclusion 2 about sending experts to study the impact abroad does not follow from the provided information.
Step-by-step explanation:
Addressing the student's question regarding the conclusions following the statement about the decline in newspaper readership due to increased television viewing among urban Indian schoolchildren, it's important to analyze the conclusions logically. While the statement presents a trend, the conclusions propose possible responses. Conclusion 1 suggests devising methods to increase newspaper readership, linking directly to the problem mentioned in the statement. This conclusion follows since it addresses a direct consequence outlined in the statement, implying the need for a solution. Conclusion 2 about sending experts abroad does not logically follow because the statement does not provide enough information to validate this as a necessary or helpful step. Thus, the correct response based on logical analysis is that only conclusion 1 follows.
The given historical context on news consumption trends reinforces this perspective. The decline in print news reading and shifting patterns towards digital sources suggest that solutions should focus on adaptation and innovation in the news industry, which is in line with conclusion 1.