Statement–Assumption (Introduce Objective Tests for MBA Admissions): Statement: “We must introduce objective-type tests to reform and improve our examination system for admission to the MBA,” says the chairman to the admission committee. Assumptions: I) Admissions at present are conducted directly through interviews. II) The admission committee is desirous of improving admission examinations. III) The chairman himself is an MBA.

Introduction / Context:
A recommendation to “reform and improve” assumes that the audience accepts the goal of improvement and is considering changes. It does not specify what current methods are (interviews vs subjective tests), nor does it hinge on the chairman’s qualifications.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Proposal: adopt objective-type tests for MBA entry.
• Audience: admission committee.
• Goal: reform/improve examinations.

Concept / Approach:
The minimal necessary assumption is that the committee wants improvement (readiness to consider reforms). Specifics about the current system or the speaker’s degree are not essential.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: The present system could be essays, GDs, varied subjective components—not necessarily “interview only.” This is not required by the statement. Not implicit.II: For the chairman’s proposal to be contextually appropriate, the committee must share the improvement objective. Implicit.III: The argument does not depend on the chairman being an MBA; authority comes from role, not degree. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy proposals address a perceived improvement need; the audience’s openness is presupposed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including I wrongly narrows the present system; including III adds irrelevant credential assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating policy specifics as if they described the status quo; appealing to authority rather than logic.

Final Answer:
Only II is implicit.