Statement: Though the Indian cricket team has returned from a disastrous tour, they should not be written off. Assumptions: I. In the past, the team had excellent tours. II. In the future, the team may perform excellently again (the potential remains). Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The statement advises against a hasty, definitive negative judgment (“writing off”) after a single disastrous tour. It trades on the idea of future potential rather than resting on a historical record.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Recent performance was poor (“disastrous tour”).
• Recommendation: do not conclude that the team is finished.

Concept / Approach:
To argue against writing off, one must assume that future outcomes could be better than the latest result. Past excellence may bolster confidence but is not logically required.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: “Past tours were excellent.” This is not necessary. One can resist writing off a team on the grounds of potential, development, or variance even without a shining past.Assumption II: “Future excellent performance is possible.” This is required; if future excellence were impossible, writing the team off would be rational. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even for a historically mediocre team, it is coherent to claim “don’t write them off” if improvement is possible (new players, strategy shifts, recovery from injuries).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both/either” wrongly pull in past-excellence; “neither” denies the prospect that underpins the advice; “only I” is irrelevant to the core logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Overemphasizing historical records in a forward-looking claim about potential.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.