Statement–Assumption (No University Responded → No Deputation): Statement: “Since no university has responded to our proposal, we shall not depute any faculty member on the course this year.” Assumptions: I) The proposal has been received by the universities. II) The proposal also indicated financial provisions. III) The proposal was unanimously approved by the State Government.

Introduction / Context:
The decision not to depute faculty is explicitly tied to “no university response.” This presupposes the meaningfulness of non-response.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No universities responded.
• Action: cancel deputation for this year.
• Unknown: funding terms or state approval.

Concept / Approach:
For “no response” to be a valid trigger, we must assume the message was successfully delivered (received). Financial details or government approvals are not textually required for the logic “no interest → no deputation.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: If universities did not receive the proposal, the “no response” inference collapses. Therefore I is implicit.II: Whether finances were detailed is orthogonal to the decision; the statement does not rely on that. Not implicit.III: Unanimous state approval is unrelated to the causal link expressed. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Communication logic requires receipt for non-response to be meaningful.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Adding II/III injects details absent from, and unnecessary to, the stated rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming background administrative steps when the statement’s causal chain is purely response-based.

Final Answer:
Only I is implicit.