Statement: The apex body regulating universities will revise syllabi of all technical courses to align with current industry needs, thereby making technical graduates more employable than at present. Which assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
The regulator intends to update technical syllabi to match industry needs and improve employability. We assess which assumptions must hold for this policy to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions (from options):

• I. Affiliated colleges may not welcome the decision and may continue with old syllabi.
• II. Industry may welcome the decision and increase hiring from these colleges.
• III. Government may not allow implementation as it could create chaos.

Concept / Approach:
The policy’s objective is employability; its plausibility rests on industry receptiveness, not on anticipated resistance or government obstruction.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Colleges’ opposition is possible but not required to justify the decision. Not implicit.II: For employability to improve through alignment with industry needs, it is assumed industry values the change and will respond positively in hiring. Implicit.III: Government blockage is speculative and not presupposed by the decision. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
If industry were indifferent, the promised employability gain would be doubtful. Hence II is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options involving I or III import unnecessary negativity not required for the policy logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “possibilities” with “assumptions”.

Final Answer:
Only II is implicit.