Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: The government has set up a fact-finding mission to look into the possible reasons for the recent violence in the area. Assumptions: I. The mission may be able to come up with credible information about the incidents. II. The people in the area may cooperate with the mission and come forward to give detailed information related to the incidents.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests assumption recognition in critical reasoning. A public authority has launched a fact-finding mission after violence. We must decide which unstated beliefs must be true for the action (setting up a mission) to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A mission is set up to investigate reasons for recent violence.
• Assumption I: the mission can obtain credible information.
• Assumption II: people will cooperate and share details.

Concept / Approach:
In assumption questions, an implicit assumption is a belief that must hold for the stated action or advice to be rational. If an authority creates an inquiry team, the team must (a) be capable of discovering facts and (b) receive cooperation from stakeholders; otherwise the initiative would be purposeless.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: “The mission cannot obtain credible information.” Then launching it is irrational. Negate II: “People will not cooperate at all.” Again, the mission becomes ineffective. The statement collapses when either is negated, confirming both are required assumptions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: ignores the other necessary pillar of a meaningful inquiry.
• Either I or II: both, not just one, are jointly needed.
• Neither: contradicts the practical rationale behind forming such missions.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing what is absolutely guaranteed with what must be reasonably expected. Assumptions require reasonable expectation, not certainty.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit