Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit): Statement: If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination. Assumptions: I. To pass, he must be intelligent. II. He will pass the examination.

Introduction / Context:
This statement is a conditional (if–then) claim. Such claims often tempt test-takers to assume the converse (reversing the direction) or to infer the antecedent is true. The task is to identify which assumptions must hold for the conditional to be reasonable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conditional claim: If intelligent → then pass.
• Assumption I: Passing requires intelligence (the converse or necessity claim).
• Assumption II: He will pass (asserting the consequent as true).

Concept / Approach:
A conditional does not assert either that the antecedent is necessary (only sufficient is stated) or that the antecedent actually holds. Therefore, neither I nor II must be true. The statement merely links intelligence as a sufficient condition to passing — it does not claim intelligence is the only way to pass, nor that he is indeed intelligent.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negation test: If passing does not require intelligence (some pass through hard work), the original conditional could still be valid. If he does not pass (perhaps he was not intelligent or other factors intervened), the original conditional is not contradicted. So neither assumption is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I/Only II/Either/Both: Each adds claims not demanded by the minimal conditional structure.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating sufficiency with necessity or assuming the antecedent is asserted as fact. Guard against the converse and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit