Statement–Assumption — “If you want to get a good job, you must have at least basic knowledge of computers.” Assumptions: I. All good jobs involve the use of computers. II. Most companies nowadays have made basic computer knowledge an essential criterion.

Introduction / Context:
The statement asserts a necessity claim (“must have basic computer knowledge”) to obtain a good job. We must isolate the minimal premise that makes such a necessity assertion reasonable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Must” indicates a screening criterion across many employers.
• “Good job” is broad; the statement generalizes across sectors.

Concept / Approach:
To claim a must-have, the speaker needs to assume that employers commonly include this as an eligibility filter. That maps to Assumption II. By contrast, Assumption I (“all good jobs involve computers”) overstates the case—some roles may remain low-tech yet still be “good.” The necessity in the statement is about hiring criteria, not about job content universally involving computers.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I is too strong and unnecessary; it converts a hiring norm into a universal job-content requirement.2) Assumption II is exactly the hiring-norm premise that underpins the “must” language.

Verification / Alternative check:
Recruitment practice often sets base digital-literacy requirements independent of day-to-day computer intensity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Neither” denies the plain hiring-norm premise; “both” imports an unnecessary universal claim; “I-only” misreads the statement.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing eligibility criteria with job content.

Final Answer:
if only Assumption II is implicit