Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: “Guests should be provided lunch,” says A to B. Assumptions: I. Unless specifically told, lunch may not be provided. II. Guests will be present during lunch time.

Introduction / Context:
A directs B to arrange lunch for guests. We must uncover the minimal beliefs that make this instruction necessary and sensible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A gives a specific instruction about lunch for guests.
• Assumption I: Without the instruction, lunch might be omitted.
• Assumption II: Guests will be present around lunchtime (so serving lunch is relevant).

Concept / Approach:
Instructions presuppose both a need to override uncertainty and the relevance of timing. If it were certain that lunch would be provided anyway, or if guests were not present at lunch time, the instruction would be redundant or pointless.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: lunch would be provided anyway without being told — then A’s statement is unnecessary. Negate II: guests won’t be around at lunch — then arranging lunch is wasteful. Each negation undermines the statement, confirming that both are required assumptions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: drops one of the two necessities (need for instruction and applicability of timing).
• Either/Neither: fail the necessity test; both are needed for the instruction to make sense.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking the time-context of directives. Logistics instructions typically assume both occasion relevance and the possibility of default omission without explicit direction.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit