Statement: “Courts are no longer cathedrals; they are casinos where the throw of the dice matters.” Assumptions: I. Nowadays, courts do not provide justice to deserving people. II. The courts are not fulfilling the objective for which they were established (reliable, principled justice). Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker contrasts “cathedrals” (symbolizing sanctity and principles) with “casinos” (chance and unpredictability). The metaphor asserts systemic unreliability in judicial outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Courts should deliver consistent, principled justice.
• Current functioning allegedly resembles randomness/chance.

Concept / Approach:
We must identify the minimal premise without which the metaphor would not bite. The core claim is institutional failure to meet its founding objective. It is not necessary to add a specific claimant category (“deserving people”).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: “Courts do not provide justice to deserving people.” While plausible, the statement’s thrust is broader—unreliability in general. Even if some deserving litigants win, the casino metaphor could still hold. Hence I is not necessary.Assumption II: “Courts are not fulfilling their objective.” This is essential; if courts were fulfilling their mission, calling them casinos would be inappropriate. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider a situation where outcomes are unpredictable yet occasionally right; the criticism still centers on failure of the institutional purpose (predictable, principled adjudication), aligning with II without requiring I to be universally true.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both/either” overstate requirements; “neither” contradicts the critique; “only I” narrows the claim improperly.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing an illustrative subgroup (“deserving people”) with the institution-wide objective.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.