Statement: “Beware! Recycled coloured plastic bags contain harmful colour pigments which, when they come in contact with food, can make the food unfit for consumption and may cause severe food poisoning, allergies, or even death,” says a scientist.\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. The non-biodegradable nature of plastic bags is what makes them an environmental hazard.\nII. Using plastic bags is harmful and can have cascading adverse effects on human life.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit in the statement.

Introduction / Context:
Statement–assumption questions test whether a given claim presupposes (takes for granted) certain background beliefs. An assumption is “implicit” if the original statement would feel unsurprising or adequately supported only when that belief is taken as true in the background.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Non-biodegradability makes plastic bags an environmental hazard.
• II. Use of plastic bags is harmful and can have cascading effects on human life.

Concept / Approach:
The scientist's warning specifically links coloured, recycled plastic bags to food contamination due to harmful pigments. We must check which assumption(s) the warning relies on. The focus is health risk via food contact, not general environmental impact.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the core message: coloured recycled plastic bags can leach harmful pigments into food, making it unsafe and potentially fatal.2) Ask: What must be true for this warning to make sense? At minimum, that using such plastic bags poses harm to humans via food contamination.3) Assumption II directly supports the health-risk claim: it presumes that using these bags is harmful and that harm can cascade (poisoning, allergies, death).4) Assumption I concerns non-biodegradability and environmental hazard. The statement is about food safety and human health, not environmental persistence or biodegradation. The warning would remain fully meaningful even if biodegradability were unknown.5) Therefore, II is implicit; I is not required.

Verification / Alternative check:
If plastics were biodegradable yet still leached harmful pigments, the warning would remain valid. Hence I is not necessary. If using plastic were not harmful, the warning would be pointless; thus II is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I implicit: incorrect; I is not needed for a food-safety warning. Either I or II: incorrect; exactly one (II) is required. Neither: incorrect; II is required. Both: incorrect; I is extraneous.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing environmental hazard (non-biodegradability) with health hazard (toxic pigments). The statement argues the latter.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.