Statement–Assumption (Leadership: Young vs. Retired at the Helm): Statement: “Get rid of the practice of appointing retirees as directors. The days of half-hearted leadership are long past. We need someone young, dynamic, and enthusiastic at the helm.” Assumptions: I) Retirees cannot be dynamic and enthusiastic enough for present needs. II) Youthful dynamism is preferable to mere seniority/experience when selecting top leadership.

Introduction / Context:
The statement argues for discontinuing the appointment of retirees as directors and explicitly endorses “someone young, dynamic, and enthusiastic.” This is a classic Statement–Assumption item: which background belief must be true for the recommendation to make sense? We test necessity, not desirability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Prescription: stop appointing retirees as directors.
• Preferred profile: young, dynamic, enthusiastic leader.
• Rationale tone: present era allegedly demands high-energy leadership, not “half-hearted” stewardship.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is implicit if negating it would undermine the argument. The author contrasts “young/dynamic” with “retiree,” implying a preference for attributes associated with youth over attributes presumed with retirement/seniority. However, the argument need not assert that retirees cannot be dynamic; it suffices that, when choosing, the speaker values youth/dynamism more than seniority/retiree status for today’s needs.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test Assumption II (youthful dynamism > mere seniority/retirement): If we deny this, the recommendation to replace retirees with young leaders loses its basis. Thus II is necessary.Test Assumption I (retirees cannot be dynamic): Not necessary. Even if some retirees are dynamic, the arguer can still prefer a policy bias toward the young on average. The conclusion survives without asserting an absolute incapacity of retirees.

Verification / Alternative check:
If retirees are occasionally dynamic (negate I), the policy could still be defended as a general rule emphasizing energy and speed; but if youthful dynamism is not regarded as superior (negate II), the prescription collapses.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” makes an unnecessary universal claim about retirees. “Either” treats two distinct ideas as substitutes. “Neither” ignores the clear value judgment embedded in the recommendation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a policy preference (young favored) with a universal stereotype (all retirees lack dynamism). The former is necessary; the latter is not.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.