Statement — The school authority will increase the number of students per classroom to seventy from the next academic session in order to bridge the income–expenditure gap to a large extent.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. The extra fee income from additional students per class will be sufficient to bridge the gap substantially.\nII. The school will in fact get enough additional students in each class from the next session.

Introduction / Context:
Increasing class size is a revenue-side measure. It makes sense only if (a) the demand exists to fill the additional seats and (b) the incremental fee revenue per class materially reduces the budget shortfall. Otherwise, the plan either fails operationally (empty seats) or financially (insufficient revenue gain).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: raise class size to 70.
• Goal: bridge income–expenditure gap to a large extent.
• I: extra fee revenue per class is financially adequate.
• II: admissions demand will meet the higher capacity.

Concept / Approach:
For policy coherence, both market feasibility (II) and financial effectiveness (I) must be presupposed. If either fails, the stated outcome becomes unlikely, undermining the decision’s rationale.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If the market is thin and few additional students enroll, or fees are too low, the gap will persist—contradicting the policy’s goal.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring capacity constraints (rooms, teachers). The assumption is minimal: enough demand and sufficient marginal revenue.

Final Answer:
Both Assumption I and II are implicit.