Statement–Assumption — “Better understanding and cooperation among exporters is needed. Effort should be to complement each other rather than compete among ourselves.” — View of an agriculturist Assumptions: I) Exporters stand to lose if they act as competitors. II) Farmer–industry cooperation can work wonders. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
This item tests the staple “statement–assumption” skill: identify the minimum background belief that must be true for the recommendation to make sense. The statement proposes that exporters should coordinate and complement each other rather than compete internally. The speaker is motivated by market outcomes that would improve if rivalry among exporters were softened in favor of coordination.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Recommendation: exporters ought to complement, not compete.
• Goal: better outcomes for the exporter community and the sector.
• Two candidate assumptions: (I) competition among exporters causes loss; (II) farmer–industry cooperation is highly effective.

Concept / Approach:
For the recommendation to be rational, the speaker must believe that intra-exporter competition is harmful relative to coordination. That is exactly Assumption I: exporters lose—e.g., by undercutting each other in foreign markets, fragmenting bargaining power, or duplicating costs—when they compete head-to-head instead of pooling strengths (quality standards, logistics, market intelligence). Assumption II is about a different axis (farmer–industry cooperation). Although such cooperation may be good, the speaker’s sentence strictly addresses cooperation among exporters, not farmers and industry; therefore II is not necessary for the stated recommendation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If exporter competition were harmless or beneficial, urging complementarity would lack force. Conversely, the statement would still make sense even if farmer–industry cooperation were neutral; hence II is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” misreads the subject; “either” overgenerates; “neither” ignores the harm-from-rivalry premise; “None of these” would be correct only if both were needed, which they are not.

Common Pitfalls:
Dragging in appealing but off-scope partnerships (farmers–industry) instead of focusing on the exact relationship mentioned (exporter–exporter).

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.