Statement: “City X should have more women driving public transport because most women do not over-speed, avoid mobile phone use while driving, do not play blaring music, and rarely jump red lights.” — a minister of state X. Assumptions: I. Increasing women drivers will create more job opportunities for women. II. Women are more disciplined than men on the roads. III. More women drivers would increase commuter safety.

Introduction / Context:
The minister argues for more women drivers on safety/discipline grounds, listing behaviors associated with safer driving. The policy rationale hinges on beliefs about comparative discipline and the safety impact, not on labor-market side effects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claimed behavioral differences: speed, distractions, red-light compliance.
• Policy aim: safer public transport.

Concept / Approach:
Two assumptions are essential: (II) women exhibit more disciplined driving on average and (III) that this discipline translates into greater commuter safety. While (I) about job opportunities may be true, the statement does not rely on it; it is not the stated reason for the policy.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Without II, the behavioral premise vanishes.2) Without III, even if discipline were higher, the case for policy impact on safety would be unproven.3) I concerns employment benefits and is not required for the safety-based argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Safety policy arguments generally rest on risk-relevant behavior and outcome linkage, matching II and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either omit a core safety premise or replace it with a nonessential labor-market point.

Final Answer:
Only II and III.