Statement: “The root cause of all social evils is love for wealth.”\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. Wealth gives power and necessarily makes people selfish.\nII. All those who love wealth are anti-social.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit in the statement.

Introduction / Context:
The statement asserts a broad causal claim: “love for wealth” is the root cause of all social evils. In statement–assumption problems, an assumption is implicit only if the original claim relies on that belief to make sense. We must test whether the statement presupposes (I) that wealth necessarily gives power and makes people selfish, or (II) that everyone who loves wealth is anti-social.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Wealth gives power and makes selfish.
• II. All who love wealth are anti-social.

Concept / Approach:
The statement draws a general causal link from a value/attitude (love of wealth) to social evils. It does not need to claim that wealth invariably confers power or selfishness (I), nor that every wealth-loving individual is anti-social (II). It can instead be read as a sweeping moral thesis: prioritizing wealth leads society toward evils, even if the mechanism varies and the claim admits exceptions at the individual level.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify what the statement must assume minimally: that love of wealth tends to promote harmful outcomes at a societal level.2) Check Assumption I: “wealth gives power and makes selfish.” The statement can stand without specifying this particular mechanism; evils might arise via envy, corruption incentives, exploitation, etc. I is not necessary.3) Check Assumption II: “all who love wealth are anti-social.” The claim speaks at a societal/causal level (“root cause”), not about categorizing every individual who loves wealth. II is an unwarranted universal and not required.

Verification / Alternative check:
The statement remains meaningful if some wealth-loving people behave pro-socially, or if wealth does not always produce power/selfishness. Hence neither I nor II is required for the thesis to make sense.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: introduces a specific causal mechanism not demanded by the claim. Only II: imposes a universal quantifier the statement does not need. Either I or II / Both: still add unnecessary specifics beyond the minimal thesis.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating a societal causal thesis with universal claims about all individuals, or insisting on one mechanism (power/selfishness) when multiple pathways could link wealth-love and social evils.

Final Answer:
Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.