Statement–Assumption — “Government will pay Rs 1,00,000 compensation to families of those killed in railway accidents.” Assumptions: I. The government has adequate funds to meet this compensation expense. II. This measure may reduce the number of railway accidents in the near future.

Introduction / Context:
Announcing compensation is a relief/rehabilitation policy, not a safety intervention. We test which beliefs are indispensable for making such an announcement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Governments can reallocate, borrow, or provision funds after the announcement.
• Compensation is post-event; it does not directly change accident causation.

Concept / Approach:
The policy does not require assuming spare funds already exist; nor does it assume the policy reduces accidents (that would be a safety-engineering claim, not a relief measure).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is unnecessary; commitment can precede appropriation or come from contingency funds.2) II is unrelated; compensation does not improve signaling, tracks, training, or oversight.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many ex gratia schemes are financed later via budgetary routes; their purpose is relief, not prevention.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/II-only/Either/Both misread fiscal timing or confuse relief with safety.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every policy implies fiscal abundance or preventive impact.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is implicit.