Statement — “Given stiff competition and a precarious financial position, top posts should be kept open for outside professionals rather than internal candidates.”\nAssumptions:\nI. Internal candidates seek promotions without much contribution.\nII. Experienced outside professionals are more likely to handle the airline’s problems.

Introduction / Context:
When a policy recommends recruiting outsiders over insiders, it typically assumes outsiders bring capabilities needed to address current challenges. It need not malign insiders as non-contributors.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Prefer outside professionals at the top given competition and fragile finances.
• Assumption I: Insiders mainly want promotions without contributing.
• Assumption II: Experienced outsiders can better tackle the problems.

Concept / Approach:
A decision in favor of outsiders requires faith in their superior fit for present problems (Assumption II). It does not require a negative generalization about insiders (Assumption I).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the minimum belief that makes the recommendation rational → II.2) I is an unnecessary (and extreme) characterization; the policy can stand without it.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if insiders are capable contributors, management may still believe an outsider brings fresh crisis-handling experience—sustaining the recommendation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: baseless negativity about insiders is not needed. Either/Both: overstate. Neither: contradicts the rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating preference for outsiders as an indictment of insiders. The assumption is comparative, not accusatory.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.