Statement — “Give adequate job-related training to the employees before assigning them full-fledged work.” Assumptions: I. Training helps in boosting the performance of employees. II. Employees possess no skill sets before training is provided.

Introduction / Context:In Statement–Assumption problems, we test which hidden beliefs must be true for the statement to make sense. Here, a manager recommends giving adequate, job-related training before assigning full responsibilities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Provide adequate job-related training before full-fledged work.
• Assumption I: Training improves or boosts employee performance.
• Assumption II: Employees have no skills before training.

Concept / Approach:The recommendation is rational only if training is expected to improve outcomes (productivity, quality, safety). It does not require the extreme claim that employees have zero skills pre-training; even skilled hires benefit from role-specific training.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the purpose of training: reduce errors, standardize methods, speed up ramp-up.2) If training did not help performance, the advice would be pointless → I is necessary.3) The statement does not assert that employees are skill-less; it only insists on adequacy and job relevance → II is unnecessary.

Verification / Alternative check:Suppose new employees already have baseline skills but lack firm-specific process knowledge. Training still makes sense. Hence the policy does not rely on II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II: too strong and not needed. Either: I and II are not interchangeable. Both: overstates the requirement. Neither: would make the directive irrational.

Common Pitfalls:Equating “needs training” with “has no skills.” Most roles require contextual training even for experienced hires.

Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit.