Statement — Gambling through lotteries is banned by the Central Government in all states with immediate effect.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. This may save innocent citizens from being cheated of their hard-earned money.\nII. Citizens will not gamble in any other way if lotteries are banned.

Introduction / Context:
Prohibitions are often justified on consumer-protection grounds. Banning state-wide lotteries can be premised on reducing exploitation, fraud, or financially harmful behavior among vulnerable groups. The ban does not require believing that citizens will not substitute other forms of gambling; substitution is possible and commonly observed, so II is not needed for the policy to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action: impose immediate nationwide ban on lotteries.
• I: aim to protect citizens from being cheated/losing money.
• II: assumption of no substitution to other gambling modes.

Concept / Approach:
The minimal assumption is that the ban reduces harm from this specific channel (lotteries). It need not assume elimination of all gambling avenues. Thus I is implicit; II is not.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if some switch to other forms, curbing lotteries can still lower overall harm for targeted populations.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Expecting a ban to eliminate all related behaviors rather than a specific channel of harm.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.