Statement: “Illiterate and drunk drivers should not be employed—at least where children are concerned,” says X.\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. Literacy contributes to safer or more competent driving.\nII. Children have a status equal to that of adults in every context.\nSelect the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The recommendation forbids employing illiterate or drunk drivers “at least for children,” implying a safety rationale. We test which assumptions are required.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Literacy aids driving safety/competence (e.g., reading signs, instructions).
• II. Children have a status fully equal to adults in every context.

Concept / Approach:
Forbidding illiterate drivers presumes literacy matters for safety. The phrase “at least for children” signals heightened protection, not status equality across contexts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The ban targets illiteracy and intoxication as risk factors.2) The child-focused caveat presumes additional caution is justified for children, not that children and adults have identical status in all respects.3) Therefore, I is necessary; II is not required by the statement.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if adults could legally accept higher risk, the policy is minimum protection for children. Thus equality of status is irrelevant to the reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: unrelated. Either I or II: only I is needed. Neither: false; I is required. Both: II adds an unnecessary claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading “at least for children” as a claim about legal or social equality rather than protective priority.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.