Statement: “The Government announced a heavy compensation package for all victims of the recent terrorist attacks.”\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. Such incidents of terror may not occur in the near future.\nII. Compensation may mitigate citizens’ anger against the current Government.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
Governments often deploy compensation after traumatic events to offer relief and to signal responsiveness. We must identify which background belief the announcement minimally relies on.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Terror incidents will not recur soon.
• II. Compensation may reduce public anger/resentment toward the Government.

Concept / Approach:
Compensation is a remedial, not preventive, tool. Its rationale concerns relief, fairness, and maintaining public confidence—not forecasting the absence of future incidents.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The timing (“announced a heavy compensation package”) follows an attack; it is aimed at relief and public reassurance.2) The minimal assumption is II: providing compensation is expected to alleviate suffering and ease public anger at perceived state failure.3) I is unnecessary; compensation does not depend on predicting that attacks will cease.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if further attacks tragically occur, compensation for current victims remains meaningful. Therefore I is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: unrelated to remedial purpose. Either/Both: add unneeded premises. Neither: overlooks the basic expectation that compensation can soothe public sentiment.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing remedial policy (compensation) with deterrence or prevention.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.