Statement–Assumption (Cigarette Pack Warning: “Smoking is injurious to health”): Statement: “Smoking is injurious to health,” a warning printed on cigarette packets. Assumptions: I) People read printed matter on a cigarette packet. II) People take careful note of a health warning. III) Not smoking promotes better health.

Introduction / Context:
Mandatory health warnings are intended to inform and deter risky behaviour at the point of consumption. The statement’s logic depends on the message being noticed and carrying persuasive weight. Broad claims about the positive health effects of not smoking are background facts, not necessary premises for printing the warning.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Medium: text printed on cigarette packets.
• Message: health risk warning.

Concept / Approach:
Two minimal assumptions underlie such warnings: (a) consumers look at or read the packet text, and (b) warnings can influence attitudes/behaviour at least to some extent. The normative health truth—“not smoking is healthier”—may be true, but the act of printing the warning does not logically rely on asserting that truth anew.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: If buyers never read packet text, the placement would be ineffective; printing assumes visibility at point of use. Implicit.II: Warnings presume salience—some recipients will register and potentially act on them. Implicit.III: While accurate, the statement’s decision to print does not require restating this premise; regulatory compliance alone could justify printing. Not strictly implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy rationale for warnings: increase risk awareness; relies on attention and at least partial behavioural elasticity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All” unnecessarily includes III; “Only I/Only II” omit the complementary necessary premise; “None” denies both communication and influence assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing background truths with logical necessities of a communication act.

Final Answer:
I and II are implicit.