Statement:
The General Administration Department has issued a circular to all the employees information them that henceforth the employees can avail their lunch break at any of the half-hour slots between 1.00 pm and 2.30 pm.
Assumption:
I. The employees may welcome the decision and lunch break in the work of the decision and avail lunch break at different time slots.
II. There may be not be any break in the work of the organisation as the employees will have their lunch break at different time slots.

I is not implicit: Since the statement is silent on whether the move would have a good or a bad impact, it does not make any assumption about the move's desirability. II is also not implicit . In fact the assumption is on the contrary. If we say that this move has been taken from a particular point of view ( that of exchange rate management), We assume that other moves are also possible.

If A needs to be substituted by B, we assume that B is more appropriate than A. Now, the appropriateness of sledgehammer may be due to either of the following reasons: (a) a sledgehammer is more powerful; (b) though not more powerful, it works because different tools are required in different conditions. (b) may be explained by the following example : A chalk can not be said to be more powerful than a pen. But when it comes to writing on a blackboard, you would use a chalk, not a pen.

I is implicit because the power to reject something is usually possible only when one has the power to grant it.
II has no connection whatsoever with the statement.

I is not an assumption but an inference. II is implicit because unless one is destructive, one cannot destroy something.

I is a bizarre assumption. The statement does not assume anything about what men or women should (not) do. II is implicit because to become the embodiment of something, much has to be proved first.

Were it assumed that the employees might leave, such a decision would not be taken. Hence Assumption I is implicit. Assumption II is not implicit because "next year" is present nowhere in the picture.

Assumption I is implicit in "at their own cost". Assumption II is contrary to what the citizens may have assumed.

Assumption I is implicit as this is the purpose assumed while levying the tax. II is also implicit because when a rule is framed, it is assumed that people are capable of following it.

when you instruct someone to do something, you assume that he may do it. Hence II is implicit and II is not.

When one applies for leave, one assumes that it would be granted. Hence I is not implicit. But Assumption II is implicit because only then the period of "two years" assumes meaning.