Statement: "If you lose after competing hard, that's fine. If you lose without trying hard, that disappoints me." Assumptions: I. Losing after trying hard is excusable. II. Losing without effort is regrettable. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker draws a value distinction between losing with effort versus losing without effort. We must identify the assumptions that must be true for this stance to hold.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Outcome: loss in both cases.
• Criterion: presence or absence of sincere effort.

Concept / Approach:
Two judgments are embedded: one that excuses losses with effort, and another that condemns losses without effort. Both judgments are necessary to support the stated contrast.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: The speaker explicitly signals acceptance of losses post-effort. If losing after trying were not excusable, the first clause would be inconsistent. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: The disappointment in the second clause rests on the premise that a loss without effort is blameworthy. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Remove I and the first clause collapses; remove II and the second clause loses its moral force. The contrast disappears without both assumptions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any single-assumption choice omits one half of the evaluative contrast; “neither” contradicts both clauses; “either” is insufficient.

Common Pitfalls:
Missing that both halves of the statement each carry their own necessary premise.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are implicit.