Statement–Assumption — “Provide mid-day meals to children in primary schools to increase attendance.” Assumptions: I. Offering mid-day meals will attract children to attend school more regularly. II. Children who are otherwise deprived of good food will attend school to receive the meal.

Introduction / Context:
The policy objective is explicit: increase attendance by providing mid-day meals. We must decide which background belief is necessary for this policy instrument to be sensible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Mid-day meals are an incentive tied to schooling.
• Attendance rises when direct benefits reduce opportunity costs (hunger, work, sibling care).
• The statement does not stipulate nutritional deprivation for all targeted children.

Concept / Approach:
The minimal necessary premise is that the incentive (a meal) positively influences attendance decisions (I). The additional claim that the beneficiaries are specifically “otherwise deprived of good food” (II) may often be true, but the policy’s logic does not require it; attendance can rise due to convenience, parental assurance, or community norms irrespective of prior deprivation.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is implicit: without believing meals attract children to school, the proposal would not target attendance.2) II is not necessary to the logic. The attendance effect can operate broadly, not only among nutritionally deprived children.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public policy evaluations often show incentive effects across heterogeneous households, not just the most deprived.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II-only/Either/Both over-specify the beneficiary profile; “neither” would deny the incentive mechanism.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming targeted deprivation is a necessary premise for any welfare-linked attendance program.

Final Answer:
if only assumption I is implicit.