Statement–Assumption — Department of Environment (public notice): “Do not burn leaves. Bury them in compost pits so they convert into natural manure, which benefits the soil.” Assumptions: I. Burning leaves releases particulate matter and raises air pollution, causing respiratory/eye problems. II. Composting leaves yields more useful benefits for soil than the ash obtained by burning.

Introduction / Context:
The notice recommends composting instead of burning leaves, citing benefits to soil and implying public-health concerns. The reasoning relies on environmental and agronomic premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Leaf burning contributes smoke and fine particulates to ambient air.
• Composting returns organic matter and nutrients to soil.

Concept / Approach:
Two assumptions are necessary: (I) burning leaves degrades air quality and harms health; otherwise the ban recommendation would lack a public-health basis; (II) composting offers superior agronomic value compared to ash, justifying the specific alternative (burying in pits) rather than merely “do not burn.” Without II, the notice could recommend any disposal method and would not need to prefer composting.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I supplies the harm premise for avoiding burning.2) II supplies the benefit premise for preferring composting.

Verification / Alternative check:
Solid-waste advisories typically pair a harm avoidance reason with a positive alternative featuring co-benefits.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one premise incompletely supports the prescribed behavior; “neither” rejects both health and soil rationales contrary to the notice.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that the notice argues both against burning and in favor of a particular alternative.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.