Statement: The civic administration has directed residents of dilapidated buildings to vacate, as these structures will be demolished within the next 30 days. Assumptions: I. The civic administration will be able to carry out demolition as per schedule. II. The residents of these buildings will vacate and find temporary accommodation elsewhere. Choose the option that identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
A demolition notice serves two practical goals: ensuring residents vacate unsafe premises and enabling the authority to execute demolition on schedule. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for the notice to have purpose and effect.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The buildings are unsafe (“dilapidated”).
• Demolition is planned within 30 days.
• Residents have been told to move out.

Concept / Approach:
For the directive to be meaningful, the authority must presume both (a) feasibility of demolition in the stated timeframe and (b) compliance by residents so demolition can proceed safely.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Assumption I: If the authority could not carry out demolition as scheduled, the 30-day ultimatum loses operational sense. Scheduling implies feasibility; thus I is necessary.Assess Assumption II: The instruction to vacate presumes people can and will relocate; otherwise demolition cannot legally or safely take place. Hence II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
If either I or II fails, the planned demolition would stall (no capability or no clearance). Therefore both are required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” or “only II” breaks the execution chain. “Either” implies one is enough—incorrect. “Neither” nullifies the directive’s purpose.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming legal/administrative caveats make assumptions unnecessary; operationally, both feasibility and compliance are presupposed.

Final Answer:
if both Assumption I and Assumption II are implicit