Statement: “People who swindle crores of taxpayers’ money go scot-free, while petty thieves—who may be stealing out of desperation—are given third-degree punishment and sometimes die in custody,” says Mr. X. Assumptions I & II: I. All persons should be equal before the law. II. Punishment should be proportionate to the degree of the offence committed. Select the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The remark contrasts impunity for large-scale financial crimes with harsh treatment of minor offenders, highlighting perceived injustice. We test which assumptions the critique relies on.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Equality before law should prevail.
• II. Punishment ought to be proportional to offence severity.

Concept / Approach:
Calling the situation unjust presupposes standards of legal equality and proportionality. Without these standards, the criticism would not carry normative force.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The contrast (swindlers vs petty thieves) is presented as morally/legalistically wrong.2) For it to be wrong, one must assume all are equal before law (I).3) Additionally, one must assume penalties should scale with offence gravity (II).4) Therefore both I and II are implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
If either equality or proportionality were rejected, the critique would weaken or collapse; hence both are necessary to sustain the complaint.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or only II: each omits a key normative premise. Either I or II: both are required. Neither: contradicts the basis of the criticism.

Common Pitfalls:
Focusing only on equality and overlooking proportionality, or vice versa.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.