Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) News: The State Government has abolished concessional air tickets for students. Which assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
Policy reversals typically rest on beliefs about necessity and affordability. Here, the concession is abolished. We must identify what the government likely assumes for this to be acceptable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Students will not travel by air in future.
• II: Students who do travel by air can bear the full expense of air tickets.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption must support the decision. Eliminating a subsidy commonly assumes beneficiaries can manage without it or that it is not essential for the target group.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The abolition does not presume that students will never fly (I); travel demand may continue.2) The move makes sense if policymakers believe that student flyers can afford the fares without concessions, or that financial support is unnecessary (II).3) Hence only II underlies the decision.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate II: 'Student flyers cannot afford full fares.' Then abolishing concessions would be harmful and controversial, undermining the decision. Negate I: 'Students will still fly.' The policy could still stand if they can afford it, so I is not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Both / Either: I is not needed and is unrealistic.
• Neither: II is required to justify the cut.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not confuse 'policy will reduce usage' with an assumption that usage becomes zero. The key is affordability and lack of need for subsidy.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit