Statement — “No budgetary provision will be made for appointing additional faculty due to the Institute’s changed financial priorities.”\nAssumptions:\nI. Appointing faculty requires funds.\nII. Other areas presently require greater financial attention than hiring faculty.

Introduction / Context:
Budget exclusions reflect opportunity cost. The statement rests on (a) hiring needs money and (b) other priorities outrank new faculty right now.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: No allocation for additional faculty under changed priorities.
• Assumption I: Faculty appointments consume funds.
• Assumption II: Other uses of funds are more urgent/valuable at present.

Concept / Approach:
Without I, “no budget” would be meaningless; without II, the reason (“changed priorities”) would not justify the exclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Hiring requires monetary provision → I.2) “Changed priorities” implies reallocation toward other heads → II.

Verification / Alternative check:
If hiring needed no funds, budget denial would not bind. If no alternative priorities existed, “changed priorities” would be empty rhetoric.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: insufficient. Neither: contradicts the budgeting logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring the opportunity-cost frame in budgeting.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.