Statement: “Instead of limiting capital punishment to the rarest of the rare cases, it should be made mandatory for crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, child molestation, and anti-national activities. If a person does not respect the law, let him at least fear it.”\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. When sentenced to death for any crime, a convict should at least die a painless death.\nII. A person convicted of a heinous crime deserves no kindness.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The statement advocates expanding mandatory capital punishment, offering a deterrence rationale: “If a person does not respect the law, let him at least fear it.” We must identify which premises are necessary. Note the focus is on deterrence via fear, not on execution methods or moral desert of kindness.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Death sentences should be painless.
• II. Heinous-crime convicts deserve no kindness whatsoever.

Concept / Approach:
The policy claim turns on the belief that harsher, certain penalties deter crime by increasing expected costs to offenders. Neither the painlessness of execution (I) nor a comprehensive denial of kindness (II) is needed to support that deterrence logic.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The key premise is: severe mandatory penalties increase fear and thus deter (general/specific deterrence). Neither I nor II states this.2) I concerns humane administration—orthogonal to deterrence.3) II asserts a moral stance about kindness; deterrence can be endorsed even by those who still support procedural kindness (e.g., due process, humane treatment).

Verification / Alternative check:
The argument would proceed identically whether executions were painless or whether limited kindness remained (e.g., last rites). Hence neither I nor II is required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either/Both add moral or procedural details not necessary for deterrence-based advocacy.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing policy rationale (deterrence) with separate debates (humane methods, retribution vs rehabilitation).

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.