Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: The Principal instructed all teachers to be careful in class because some students may disturb other students. Assumptions: I. Teachers will handle the situation properly and identify the naughty students. II. Students will welcome the Principal’s decision.

Introduction / Context:
The Principal issues a cautionary directive to teachers about potential disruptions. We must determine which underlying beliefs are necessary for this instruction to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Teachers are asked to be careful to prevent disturbance.
• Assumption I: Teachers can identify and manage disruptive students.
• Assumption II: Students will welcome the decision.

Concept / Approach:
An instruction assumes capacity and agency in the audience (teachers). It does not need student approval to be valid; policy can be enforced regardless of student sentiment.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: teachers cannot manage disruptions — then instructing them to “be careful” has no practical effect. Negate II: students may not welcome it — the directive remains rational and enforceable. Thus only I is implicit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II, Either, Neither, Both: Each includes a non-necessary sentiment about student approval or excludes the necessary management capability of teachers.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every stakeholder must approve of a policy. Administrative directives typically presume staff ability, not universal popularity.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit