Statement–Assumption (Consultant: Prune Staff and Borrow to Restore Viability): Statement: “To make the company commercially viable, there is an urgent need to prune staff strength and borrow from financial institutions,” opines a consultant. Assumptions: I) Financial institutions will lend for such restructuring needs. II) The company’s product has a viable market (revenue can cover streamlined costs). III) The employees of the company are inefficient.

Introduction / Context:
Restructuring advice typically assumes finance availability and market viability post-reform. It need not pass judgment on employees’ intrinsic efficiency; “pruning” can address cost structure regardless of individual performance.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Actions proposed: reduce headcount; borrow funds.
• Goal: regain commercial viability.

Concept / Approach:
For the plan to work, two enabling premises are needed: access to debt (to meet working capital/transition costs) and a market that can support operations once costs are right-sized. Assuming inefficiency of all employees is neither stated nor necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: The proposal presumes lenders will finance the plan; without credit access, the borrowing leg is infeasible. Implicit.II: If no product market exists, cost cuts and loans cannot deliver viability; demand is a prerequisite. Implicit.III: “Employees are inefficient” is an unnecessary moral evaluation; pruning can be economic (duplication, automation, overcapacity). Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Turnarounds rest on capital availability and revenue prospects. Workforce adjustments do not imply incompetence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“II and III” wrongly attributes inefficiency; “All” overstates; “None” ignores obvious enablers; “Only I” omits market viability.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating headcount reduction with condemning employee efficiency; overlooking demand-side feasibility.

Final Answer:
I and II are implicit.