Statement — “To save the environment, enforce a total ban on illegal mining throughout the country.”\nAssumptions:\nI. Legal mining does not cause any harm to the environment.\nII. Mining is one factor responsible for environmental degradation.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal targets illegal mining as an environmental threat. It does not make claims about the harmlessness of legal mining; it only assumes mining contributes to environmental harm, and illegal operations are particularly damaging.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Enforce a total ban on illegal mining to protect the environment.
• Assumption I: Legal mining is harmless.
• Assumption II: Mining contributes to environmental degradation.

Concept / Approach:
For the recommendation to be meaningful, mining (especially illegal mining) must be a significant environmental factor (II). Claiming legal mining is harmless (I) is unnecessary to justify banning the illegal variety.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The action focuses on illegality and associated harm.2) The necessity is that mining can degrade the environment → II.3) I is not required; legal mining may still have impacts but be regulated.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if legal mining has some impact, curbing illegal mining can still reduce harm.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Either/Both: add an unnecessary and over-strong claim. Neither: denies the assumed link between mining and harm.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “ban illegal” with “legal is harmless.” Policy nuance matters.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.