Statement — The Government announced a heavy compensation package for all victims of the terrorist attacks.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. Such incidents of terror may not occur in the near future.\nII. 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.