Statement: "The state's executive machinery should take all necessary measures to stop hazardous and poisonous effluents from being discharged into the Yamuna." — Court order Assumptions: I. The water of the Yamuna is contaminated (or under threat of contamination) by hazardous effluents. II. The state machinery has not taken adequate measures so far to prevent this pollution. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
A court instructs the executive to take “all necessary measures” to stop hazardous effluents entering a river. What must be true for such a directive to make sense?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action demanded: stronger preventive measures.
• Target: hazardous/poisonous effluent discharge into the Yamuna.

Concept / Approach:
Orders to act usually presuppose (a) the existence of a problem (or serious risk), and (b) a gap in current effort sufficient to justify judicial intervention.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: If contamination (or imminent threat) did not exist, ordering action would be ungrounded. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: If the state machinery had already taken adequate measures, further direction would be redundant. The court’s order implies insufficiency to date. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
If either assumption were false (no contamination or adequate measures already in place), the directive would lack purpose.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Single-assumption options omit one pillar of the order’s logic; “neither” contradicts the premise of intervention; “either” is insufficient.

Common Pitfalls:
Missing that judicial directions typically imply both a problem and inadequate status quo response.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are implicit.