Statement–Assumption (NDMC Property-Return Ads and Waste of Money): Statement: “NDMC is wasting money and valuable resources by issuing big advertisements asking people to file their property returns.” Assumptions: I) Nowadays people are not interested in filing their property taxes. II) Smaller-scale advertisements or lower-cost channels could achieve the same objective effectively.

Introduction / Context:
Calling a specific communication strategy “wasteful” implies there exists a cheaper or equally effective alternative. We must identify the minimal, necessary belief that makes the criticism of “big advertisements” rational.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• NDMC uses large, presumably expensive ads to push compliance.
• Critique: this is a waste of money and resources.

Concept / Approach:
For the charge of “waste,” the argument needs the viability of an alternative that achieves the same goal at lower cost; it does not need sweeping claims about citizens’ willingness to comply.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: “People are not interested in filing property taxes.” This is not necessary. Even if people are willing, the ads could still be judged needlessly large and therefore wasteful. The waste claim is about means, not about citizen motivation.Assumption II: “Smaller/cheaper messaging can work.” This is essential. Without the feasibility of a lower-cost approach of comparable effectiveness, the charge of waste would be baseless.

Verification / Alternative check:
If no cheaper effective alternative exists, “big ads” may be justified, and the “waste” charge collapses. Hence II is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: focuses on citizen apathy, which is not needed to label the ads wasteful. Either/Neither: both ignore the central cost-effectiveness premise (II).

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating outcome non-compliance with communication inefficiency; the latter can exist even when the former is absent.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.