Statement: If Mr X does not mend his ways, I will call the police. Assumptions: I. Mr X may mend his ways. II. The police may help me. III. Mr X was my friend in the past. Choose the option that identifies the implicit assumption or assumptions.

Introduction / Context:
Conditional warnings presuppose that the addressee can change behavior and that the threatened sanction is effective. We identify which unstated premises are necessary.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The speaker issues a conditional threat regarding police involvement.
• The aim is to induce compliance or behavior change.
• No relationship status is mentioned.

Concept / Approach:
Ask what must hold true for the conditional to make sense as a persuasive act.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Implicit. The warning only makes sense if Mr X can choose to mend his ways.II: Implicit. The police are presumed to be a credible authority capable of helping.III: Not implicit. Past friendship is irrelevant to the conditional structure.

Verification / Alternative check:
Threats rely on assumed efficacy of the sanction and the agent’s capacity to comply.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any inclusion of III adds an unnecessary detail; singletons omit a necessary assumption.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading biographical details into generic statements.

Final Answer:
I and II are implicit