Statement: "All the State Governments and Union Territories should make video-filming of post-mortem examinations compulsory in cases of custodial deaths." — National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Assumptions: I. Doctors sometimes provide false or influenced post-mortem reports in custodial death cases. II. The kith and kin of the victims do not get justice for custodial violence. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
This item tests recognition of implicit assumptions behind a policy recommendation. The NHRC recommends compulsory video-filming of post-mortems for custodial deaths. We must identify what must be true for this recommendation to be meaningful, not merely desirable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Context: custodial deaths, where potential conflict of interest or pressure on medical/legal processes may exist.
• Proposal: compulsory video-filming of post-mortems to increase transparency and accountability.
• Goal: bolster evidentiary integrity and deter malpractice.

Concept / Approach:
In verbal reasoning, an implicit assumption is a necessary premise without which the statement loses its force. Here, the utility of video-filming hinges on the existence or risk of inaccurate, biased, or manipulated post-mortem reports.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: If doctors never falsified or were never influenced, compulsory filming would add little value. The recommendation presumes a problem of accuracy/credibility that filming can mitigate. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: While lack of justice for families may be a consequence of falsified reports, the NHRC’s recommendation does not require that justice has not been served in general. The policy could be adopted proactively to prevent possible miscarriages. Thus II is not strictly necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
If there were no risk of false/compromised autopsies (I false), filming would be redundant. If some families already secure justice (II false), filming could still be warranted; the recommendation stands.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II as necessary overreach. “Both” and “either” wrongly elevate II; “neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the crux.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a plausible motivation (justice for families) with a logically necessary assumption.

Final Answer:
if only assumption I is implicit.