Statement–Assumption — “Strict action will be taken against MCD employees if found guilty of connivance in illegal encroachments.” — New Municipal Commissioner Assumptions: I) Some MCD employees indulge in corruption/collusion. II) The warning will help to minimise corruption. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
A deterrent statement targets specific misconduct. For it to be purposeful, there must be misconduct to deter and an expectation that the warning/penalty threat will reduce it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Illegal encroachments occur with possible insider collusion.
• Announcements of strict action aim to change behaviour through deterrence.

Concept / Approach:
I is necessary; otherwise the warning addresses a non-existent problem. II is also necessary; otherwise issuing the warning would be pointless.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Public administration often uses disciplinary threats to curb malfeasance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Leaving out either undermines the practical logic of making the statement.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating public warnings as mere rhetoric with no expected effect.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.