Statement–Assumption — “Unlike other threats, AIDS spreads slowly but steadily. Governments spend billions against terrorism, yet do not show comparable seriousness against this sure killer.” — A citizen’s comment Assumptions: I) Government perception and prioritization of AIDS must change substantially. II) AIDS poses a greater threat to human life than terrorism. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The speaker contrasts high spending against terrorism with inadequate seriousness toward AIDS, described as a “sure killer.” The rhetorical target is policy priority, not a mathematical comparison of lethality. In assumption analysis, we isolate the belief that must hold for the critique to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observation: AIDS expands slowly and steadily.
• Contrast: heavy counter-terror spending vs. insufficient AIDS seriousness.
• Policy thrust: calls for greater governmental seriousness on AIDS.

Concept / Approach:
Assumption I is necessary: if government perception did not need to shift, the appeal for seriousness would be misplaced. The claim “sure killer” signals that AIDS deserves more attention than it currently receives. Assumption II states an absolute ranking (“poses more threats than terrorism”). The argument does not need this extreme claim; one can argue for greater AIDS seriousness even if its threat is not categorically greater than terrorism. The essence is proportionality and adequacy, not supremacy in risk.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Public budgets commonly expand for an underfunded risk without establishing it as strictly greater than another risk; adequacy is enough.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II forces an unnecessary absolute. “Either” overgeneralizes; “neither” ignores the prioritization premise; “None of these” implies both, which is not needed.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “more funding needed” as “risk is definitely greater than terrorism.”

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.