Statement–Assumption — “It is not always true that only an intelligent person can qualify the written examination for Probationary Officers (POs).” Assumptions: I. An intelligent person can qualify the written examination for POs. II. A person who is not intelligent can also qualify the written examination for POs.

Introduction / Context:
The statement rejects the exclusivity claim that only intelligent people qualify the PO written exam. We must determine which beliefs must be true for this rejection to hold meaningfully.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Target claim negated: exclusivity of intelligence as a qualifying condition.
• Focus: existence of qualifiers outside the “intelligent” set.

Concept / Approach:
To say “not only intelligent can qualify” minimally presupposes that non-intelligent (or less-intelligent/other traits like diligent, well-prepared) candidates can also qualify (Assumption II). It does not need to presume that intelligent people can qualify (I); even if some intelligent candidates fail, the point is about exclusivity, not sufficiency or certainty for intelligence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Translate: “Only intelligent qualify” is false → There exists at least one qualifier who is not intelligent → II is necessary.2) I is not necessary: the claim does not guarantee outcomes for intelligent candidates; it only denies exclusivity.

Verification / Alternative check:
From logic: “Not (Only A are B)” implies “Some B are not A.” It does not assert “All A are B.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“I only” misreads the negation; “either/both” overcommit; “neither” ignores the existential claim about non-intelligent qualifiers.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “only A” with “all A” and overlooking the existential counterexample needed to refute exclusivity.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.