Statement: “Before you hire a domestic help, get his/her background verified through us. Your family’s safety depends on this simple step.” — City Police. Assumptions: I. Police verification of domestic help is an effective measure for preventing crime. II. The verification of domestic help’s antecedents is a simple process.

Introduction / Context:The advisory links household safety with completing a background verification. The persuasive force depends on the effectiveness of the verification in reducing risk, not strictly on how “simple” the process is in absolute terms.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Police advocate background checks before hiring domestic help.
• They label it a “simple step.”

Concept / Approach:For the recommendation to make sense, verification must be effective at screening risk (Assumption I). Calling it “simple” is rhetorical encouragement; the advice can still be justified even if the process is moderately involved, since safety benefits can outweigh convenience (hence II is not necessary).

Step-by-Step Solution:1) If verification did not reduce risk, the call to action would be empty — I is necessary.2) If the process were not truly simple, it might lower compliance but does not invalidate the safety rationale — II is not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:Public-safety campaigns often simplify language to increase uptake; the core assumption remains efficacy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Options including II overstate what must be believed for the advice to be reasonable.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing persuasive wording with logical necessity.

Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit.