Statement–Assumption (Pollution, Lost Purity, and Healthy Living): Statement: “There was a time when rivers were pure, earth clean, and air clear. Those days have gone. But there are still ways for you to live healthy.” Assumptions: I) Environmental conditions affect human health. II) People themselves are responsible for making the environment polluted.

Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts a pristine past with a polluted present but offers hope that individuals can still live healthily. We must find which assumption the message necessarily relies upon.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Past: pure rivers, clean earth, clear air.
• Present: environmental degradation acknowledged.
• Advice: pathways to healthy living still exist.

Concept / Approach:
For the advice to be meaningful, there must be a causal or correlational link between environment and health; otherwise the environmental commentary would be irrelevant to the call for healthy living strategies.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: If environmental quality did not affect health, contrasting past purity with present pollution would not set up the relevance of “still living healthy.” The argument presumes environment matters to health outcomes. Hence I is implicit.Assumption II: Assigning blame (people are responsible) is not necessary. The statement never attributes agency; it only describes the state of the environment and proceeds to advice. Therefore II is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negating I severs the logic between environmental decline and health-focused advice; the message loses force. Negating II leaves the message intact because causation (who caused pollution) is not used in the argument.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options containing II overreach; “neither” disregards the essential health–environment linkage.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading moral blame into a statement that is primarily descriptive and advisory.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.