Statement — “Banks should always check a client’s financial status before lending money.”\nAssumptions:\nI. Such checking yields a sufficiently true picture of the client’s financial status.\nII. Clients sometimes may not present a correct picture of their repayment ability.

Introduction / Context:
Prudent lending requires information. The directive to “always check” presupposes that (a) checking is informative and (b) unverified declarations can be unreliable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Banks must check financial status before lending.
• Assumption I: The check meaningfully reveals true financials.
• Assumption II: Clients may sometimes misstate their ability to repay.

Concept / Approach:
If checks did not improve the bank’s knowledge or if clients were always fully accurate, the insistence on checking would be unnecessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Necessity of I: Without informative checks, the policy lacks benefit.2) Necessity of II: If clients always present a correct picture, extra checks would be redundant.

Verification / Alternative check:
Real-world experience of adverse selection and information asymmetry supports both assumptions as the minimal rationale for the rule.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: understate. Neither: contradicts the policy’s rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “check” is bureaucratic; in lending, it is a risk-control requirement.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.