Statement — “To save the environment, enforce a total ban on illegal mining throughout the country.”\nAssumptions:\nI. Mining conducted legally does not cause any harm to the environment.\nII. Mining is one of the factors responsible for environmental degradation.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal targets illegal mining as an environmental threat. The minimal belief is that mining (especially when illegal and unregulated) contributes to environmental harm.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Total ban on illegal mining to protect the environment.
• Assumption I: Legal mining is harmless.
• Assumption II: Mining is a contributor to environmental degradation.

Concept / Approach:
To justify banning illegal mining for environmental reasons, it must be assumed that mining causes harm (II). The statement does not need to claim that legal mining is harmless (I); legal mining might still have impacts but be regulated to mitigate them.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Link problem to cause: environmental harm ← illegal mining.2) Necessity: mining contributes to harm → II must hold.3) No need to assert zero harm from legal mining → I is not required.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if legal mining has some impact, curbing illegal operations can still reduce total damage, so the policy retains meaning without I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Either/Both: add an unnecessary claim. Neither: denies the causal premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “ban illegal” as “legal is harmless.” The statement is narrower.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.