Statement: "Despite a draconian crackdown on software pirates announced last year in country X, the country remains the world’s third-largest market for bootleg computer programs," reports a journalist.\nAssumptions:\nI. Computer piracy is declining worldwide but increasing in country X.\nII. A draconian crackdown can or should “bring bootleggers to hell” (completely stop them).

Introduction / Context:
The report contrasts a strong enforcement announcement with continued, large-scale piracy. It highlights persistence, not global trends or absolutist expectations. We must see whether either proposed assumption is necessary to make sense of the observation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fact: crackdown announced last year.
• Outcome: country remains #3 bootleg market.
• I: global decline but local increase.
• II: draconian measures should completely eliminate piracy.

Concept / Approach:
Stating that a country remains a top market after a crackdown presupposes neither a world trend nor a belief in total eradication. It merely notes ineffectiveness/insufficiency relative to the objective.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Whether the rest of the world is up or down (I) is irrelevant to the country-specific persistence; not necessary.2) The journalist does not need to assume that crackdowns must fully “bring to hell” bootleggers; the point works even if crackdowns typically reduce but do not eliminate piracy. Hence II is not necessary.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many enforcement efforts achieve partial compliance; reporting continued scale requires no assumption of zero-tolerance success expectation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They add extraneous claims: world trends (I) and absolute efficacy (II) not required for the contrast.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading normative expectations into descriptive reporting.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.