Statement–Assumption (Institutions as Engines of Development): Statement: “If a region is crying for development, establish a new university, an advanced medical institute, and a centre for agricultural research there—and wait for the results.” Assumptions: I) Creating new states alone would not speed up development. II) Development can be accelerated by spreading education and research capacity through such institutions.

Introduction / Context:
The statement proposes a concrete remedy for underdevelopment: build higher-education, medical, and agricultural research institutions and allow time for impact. The core question is: what belief must be true for this prescription to be sensible?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy lever: establish knowledge/health/research institutions.
• Goal: regional development.

Concept / Approach:
For the recommendation to be meaningful, one must accept that such institutions catalyse development (human capital, health outcomes, innovation, productivity spillovers). Discussion about “new states” is a separate political remedy not referenced in the statement and hence not required as an assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II: Necessary. Without believing that universities, medical institutes, and research centres drive development, the advice lacks rationale.Assumption I: Not necessary. The statement does not contrast its remedy against statehood/federal restructuring; it simply prescribes an institutional pathway.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate II (institutions do not aid development) and the recommendation collapses. Negate I (state creation could help) yet the institutional remedy could still be valid—thus I is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” and “Either/Neither” overlook the indispensable causal link between institutions and development.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the statement is about political federalism; it is about knowledge/health infrastructure as development engines.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.