Statement: A political leader says: Congress has crossed all limits of corruption; therefore people should vote out Congress and bring BJP into power. Assumptions: I. An honest government is needed. II. BJP is honest. III. No other party should contest the upcoming election. Choose the option that identifies the implicit assumption or assumptions.

Introduction / Context:
We test which premises must be presumed for the speaker’s recommendation to have force. Assumptions need not be true; they must be necessary to the reasoning presented.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The claim compares alleged corruption with an implied better alternative.
• Recommendation is to install BJP in power.
• Other parties exist but are not mentioned.

Concept / Approach:
For the recommendation to be coherent, the speaker must value honesty in government and believe BJP provides it relative to the criticized party.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Implicit. Without valuing honesty, corruption would not be a decisive electoral reason.II: Implicit. Recommending BJP as the remedy assumes it is honest relative to the accused party.III: Not implicit. The argument does not require excluding other parties; it merely promotes one alternative.

Verification / Alternative check:
Campaign rhetoric commonly presumes the promoted party satisfies the valued trait.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including III adds an exclusion not required; single I ignores the comparative assumption in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating recommendations as exclusive when not stated.

Final Answer:
I and II are implicit