Statement: “Claims that State X is progressing industrially are tall; unemployment rising by leaps and bounds is enough to corroborate that,” says a politician of State X.\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. If the state were progressing on the industrial front, it should be reflected in the unemployment situation.\nII. Progress on the industrial front reduces financial crunch.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The politician rejects “industrial progress” claims by citing rising unemployment as contradictory evidence. The argument treats unemployment as a proxy for industrial performance. We must extract the necessary premise(s) behind this inference.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Genuine industrial progress tends to reduce unemployment (or at least not let it surge).
• II. Industrial progress reduces financial crunch.

Concept / Approach:
To use rising unemployment as a rebuttal to industrial progress claims, one must assume a negative relationship between industrial progress and unemployment (I). Claim II about “financial crunch” is not used in the argument; it is extraneous.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The structure is modus tollens–like: If industrial progress, then lower (or stable) unemployment; but unemployment is rising sharply; therefore, not progressing.2) This requires I to connect progress to unemployment. 3) Statement II concerns fiscal conditions and is not part of the unemployment-based refutation.

Verification / Alternative check:
The politician’s claim collapses if industrial progress can coexist with rising unemployment (e.g., automation with jobless growth). Hence I is indeed the hinge premise; II is irrelevant to this specific reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both/Neither misrepresent the logical dependence of the argument.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every metric must move together; here the speaker specifically leans on unemployment as the barometer, which needs I.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.