Statement: “Completely eliminating the executive’s say is unacceptable; merit, ability, competence, integrity, and suitability alone are not enough for appointing High Court judges,” says a journalist. Assumptions I & II: I. A person’s social outlook, concern for public interest and equality, and political outlook also matter for judicial appointments. II. Executive consultation will ensure greater transparency in the appointment process. Select the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The journalist argues that eliminating the executive’s role is unacceptable and that “merit” (in a narrow sense) is insufficient for judicial appointments. This suggests additional attributes are relevant beyond formal credentials.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Broader qualities—social outlook, public-interest orientation, commitment to equality, political outlook—are also pertinent to appointing judges.
• II. Executive consultation ensures greater transparency.

Concept / Approach:
The first claim (merit alone is not enough) directly presupposes that other evaluative dimensions must be considered. The second claim (about the executive) does not necessarily presuppose a specific benefit like “transparency”; it could rest on balance, accountability, representation, or checks-and-balances.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Saying “merit etc. alone are not enough” entails that additional qualities matter (I).2) The rejection of “eliminating executive say” does not commit to the particular benefit named in II (transparency). The journalist could oppose elimination for reasons other than transparency.3) Therefore, only I is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
If I were false (no additional qualities matter), the journalist’s statement collapses. If II were false, the journalist might still hold that some executive role is needed for other reasons; hence II is not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: unsupported specificity. Either I or II: only I is needed. Neither: incorrect because the “beyond merit” claim requires I. Both: overstates the necessary premises.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “do not eliminate executive say” with a unique rationale like transparency, when multiple rationales could justify the position.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.