Statement: The Government has decided to levy 2 percent on the tax amount payable for funding drought relief programmes. Assumptions: The Government does not have sufficient money to fund drought relief programmes. The amount collected by way of surcharge may be adequate to fund these drought relief programmes.

Given data

• Government levies a 2% surcharge on tax payable to fund drought relief.
• Assumption I: Existing funds are insufficient for drought relief.
• Assumption II: The surcharge collections may be adequate (or at least materially sufficient) to fund the programmes.

Concept/Approach
A targeted surcharge for a purpose presumes a resource gap and that the levy will meaningfully bridge it.

Step-by-step reasoning
I: If there were already enough funds, earmarking an extra levy specifically for drought relief would be unnecessary. Hence I is implicit.II: Instituting a surcharge assumes its proceeds will (at minimum) adequately or substantially meet the funding need. Otherwise the policy rationale collapses. Thus II is implicit.

Verification/Alternative
Negate I: 'We already have enough.' Then the surcharge lacks justification. Negate II: 'The 2% won't raise enough.' Then the levy wouldn't serve its stated purpose. Both negations undercut the decision.

Common pitfalls

• Interpreting II as 'guaranteed full sufficiency'; policy only requires reasonable adequacy/utility, which is what 'may be adequate' captures.

Final Answer
Both I and II are implicit.