Statement: A militant group that infiltrated Indian territory kidnapped a local resident and forced him to act as a guide.\nAssumptions:\nI. Local residents have good knowledge of the terrain and routes in and around the area.\nII. Even under coercion, a local guide may still provide proper and accurate guidance.

Introduction / Context:
The statement describes an infiltration scenario where militants compel a local to guide them. We must deduce which assumptions make this tactic rational from their perspective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action: kidnapping a local to serve as guide.
• I: locals possess valuable terrain knowledge.
• II: coercion will still yield usable guidance.

Concept / Approach:
Choosing a local as a guide presupposes both relevant knowledge (I) and expected compliance under duress (II). Without I, a local offers no advantage over maps or GPS; without II, the tactic risks misdirection or refusal, making kidnapping counterproductive.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Militants believe that locals know safe paths, patrol timings, shortcuts, and natural cover—hence I.2) They also believe that coercion (threats, weapons) can compel cooperation adequate for navigation—hence II.3) Because the group acted on both beliefs by kidnapping and using the local, both assumptions are necessary for their plan to make sense.

Verification / Alternative check:
Historical accounts of insurgencies show coercive use of local porters/guides; effectiveness depends precisely on terrain knowledge and enforced compliance, reinforcing I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that omits either I or II leaves the militants’ tactic irrational (no knowledge benefit or no expected cooperation).

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming coercion guarantees perfect accuracy; the assumption required is reasonable expectation of usable guidance, not certainty.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.