Statement — The Government announced a heavy compensation package for all victims of the terrorist attacks. Assumptions — I. Such incidents of terror may not occur in the near future. II. Compensation may mitigate public anger against the current government.

Introduction / Context:
Compensation is an ex post relief measure intended to provide financial support and to calm public sentiment after a tragedy. Announcing a “heavy” package presupposes that monetary relief can reduce public anger or dissatisfaction directed at the administration and support rehabilitation. It does not require any prediction that terror incidents will not recur; compensation concerns the aftermath, not future probabilities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action: announce heavy compensation to victims.
• I: assumption about non-occurrence of future terror incidents.
• II: assumption about compensation reducing public anger and distress.

Concept / Approach:
Relief policies aim at restitution and social stability. Their logic relies on II—perceived mitigation of anger and support to victims. Assumption I is irrelevant to the justification for compensation and is not required by the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if risks persist, compensating victims remains sensible; hence I is not implicit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating prevention policy (security) with relief policy (compensation).

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.