Statement–Assumption (Roots of Indifference and Social Attitudes): Statement: “Our indifference is due to our selfishness. Jealousy, fatalistic attitude, and indifferent behaviour—all of them stem from an inferiority complex.” Assumptions: I) Indifference can be minimised with love and brotherhood. II) National integration cannot be enhanced without first minimising indifference among citizens.

Introduction / Context:
The statement attributes certain negative social attitudes—indifference, jealousy, and fatalism—to underlying personality-level causes, specifically selfishness and an inferiority complex. In a Statement–Assumption question, we test which background beliefs must be true for the statement to make sense, not which beliefs would merely be desirable or compatible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim 1: Indifference is caused by selfishness.
• Claim 2: Jealousy, fatalism, and indifference stem from inferiority complex.
• The statement is explanatory/diagnostic, not prescriptive.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is implicit if the statement collapses when the assumption is negated. Remedies, policies, or broader civic outcomes are separate issues and are not automatically implied by causal attributions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I (love/brotherhood reduce indifference): The original statement never proposes a remedy. Whether love and brotherhood would reduce indifference is an additional prescriptive claim that does not underpin the causal diagnosis “indifference → selfishness / inferiority complex.” Negating I does not harm the causal assertion; hence I is not implicit.Test II (national integration depends on reducing indifference): The statement does not discuss national integration at all; it is focused on psychological causation. Negating II changes nothing about the validity of the causal claims; hence II is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if remedies are ineffective (negating I) or national integration is unaffected by indifference (negating II), the causal attributions could still be true. Therefore neither assumption is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I”/“Only II”/“Either” incorrectly import external goals (reform, nation-building) not required for the statement’s truth. The statement is etiological, not programmatic.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a diagnosis with a treatment plan; assuming that any statement about causes must presuppose a particular cure or civic objective.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.