Statement:\nThe cabinet decided to wind up various existing environmental authorities and set up a National Authority headed by a Supreme Court judge, along with six regional authorities, to support the Ministry of Environment and Forests.\n\nAssumptions:\nI. The new authorities will be able to focus on eco-sensitive areas and region-specific issues more effectively.\nII. The new structure will help reorganise and streamline the functioning of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions is implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
Restructuring regulators typically aims to improve focus and efficiency. Here, the cabinet replaces multiple bodies with a National Authority (led by a Supreme Court judge) plus six regional authorities to assist the ministry. We must infer the necessary beliefs that make this overhaul sensible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action: Wind up existing bodies; create a national apex and six regional authorities.
• Assumption I: The regional tier can better attend to eco-sensitive or regional issues.
• Assumption II: The new arrangement will streamline/reorganise ministry functioning.

Concept / Approach:
A structural change is justified if it is expected to deliver improved oversight (regional granularity) and better administrative efficiency (streamlining). Both are parts of the policy logic: an apex for coherence/credibility and regional nodes for local specificity and throughput.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Interpreting the move as merely symbolic. The structural choices embed expectations about on-ground responsiveness and central coherence.

Final Answer:
Both Assumptions I and II are implicit.