Statement: If betting and match-fixing play a vital role in cricket—making the game ungentlemanly and ugly—then there is no point wasting precious time watching a game that cheats the innocent. Assumptions: I. This “contagion” may spread to other games as well. II. Cricketers (and/or insiders) actually indulge in betting and match-fixing, thereby exploiting the public. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The statement recommends not watching cricket if betting and match-fixing are central to it. We must find the indispensable premise behind this recommendation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conditional frame: if betting/match-fixing are vital, the sport “cheats the innocent.”
• Prescription: do not waste time watching it.

Concept / Approach:
A necessary assumption is one without which the recommendation collapses. The advice presumes that the corrupt practices actually occur (or are significantly plausible) in cricket and that they exploit viewers.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: Whether or not the problem spreads to other sports is irrelevant to the advice about watching cricket. The recommendation stands even if the issue is confined to cricket. Thus I is not necessary.Assumption II: The argument assumes the occurrence (or high likelihood) of betting/match-fixing that wrongs viewers. If this were not the case, the advice to abstain would lack justification. Hence II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
If II were false, watching would not be “wasting time on cheating entertainment,” undermining the recommendation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option including I as necessary adds an extraneous contagion claim. “Neither” denies the core premise; “either/both” overstate requirements.

Common Pitfalls:
Letting colorful language about “contagion” distract from the action-guiding premise.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.