Statement–Assumption (Thomas Cup Prospects for India): Statement: “If the Indian men play to potential, they have a good chance to make the grade this time in the Thomas Cup,” says the coach. Assumptions: I) The Indian men’s team possesses the potential required to qualify/win. II) The team has potential but lacks the will to perform well.

Introduction / Context:
Conditional performance statements (“if they play to potential…”) presuppose the existence of that potential. They do not, by themselves, assert anything about desire, motivation, or attitude unless explicitly stated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conditional clause: “if they play to potential”.
• Claimed outcome: “good chance to make the grade”.

Concept / Approach:
We check which minimal premise is needed for the conditional to be meaningful.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: The existence of sufficient potential is necessary; without it, the conditional becomes empty rhetoric. Hence I is implicit.Assumption II: The idea that players “do not want to perform” is not stated or required. A coach can issue such conditionals irrespective of inferred motivation. Thus II is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I (no potential) and the statement collapses. Negate II (they do want to perform) and the statement remains unaffected.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II, either/or, neither: all overlook the necessity of potential while importing an unnecessary conjecture about intent.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading moral judgment (lack of will) into a purely performance-contingent statement.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.