Statement: “The municipal corporation has permitted fun fairs in the local football ground during the holiday season.”\nAssumptions I–III:\nI. Local residents may protest the corporation’s decision.\nII. Many people may not participate in the fun fair.\nIII. Only children are allowed to take part in the fun fair.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
Granting permission is an administrative act acknowledging feasibility and expected public utility. We test whether the decision presupposes protests, low participation, or child-only access.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Residents may protest.
• II. Many people may not participate.
• III. Only children are allowed.

Concept / Approach:
An action’s minimal assumptions are those without which it would not make practical sense. Permission to hold a public fair normally presumes adequate participation and inclusivity, not the negations suggested in I–III.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The corporation’s decision can be fully sensible without assuming protests (I); in fact, it expects orderly conduct.2) The decision also does not assume low participation (II); if anything, it anticipates interest.3) III is plainly not required; a public fun fair typically targets families, not exclusively children.4) Therefore, none of I–III is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if protests or low turnout occur, the permission’s rationale (seasonal recreation, local economy) remains independent of those negative assumptions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
All implicit / Only III / I and II: these load the decision with unnecessary or contrary assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming authorities predict negative responses as prerequisites; permissions typically rest on compliance with norms and expected benefits.

Final Answer:
None is implicit.