Statement: The police cordoned off the entire locality for a day and stopped all vehicular movement during the visit of a top government functionary, advising residents to limit their movement due to a threat perception. Which of the following assumptions is/are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
The police impose restrictions for a VIP visit due to threat perception and advise residents accordingly. We test the proposed assumptions for necessity.

Given Data / Assumptions (from original options):

• I. Police may not be able to control traffic and may seek armed forces help.
• II. Residents may move out for the day to avoid inconvenience.
• III. The VIP may request lifting the ban on residents’ movement.

Concept / Approach:
An action’s assumptions should be directly connected to its rationale (security and control), not speculative reactions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: The statement does not imply incapacity requiring armed forces; it states police cordoned and controlled traffic. Not implicit.II: Advising residents to limit movement does not imply they will leave the area entirely; opposite behaviour is suggested. Not implicit.III: No hint the VIP will intervene to lift restrictions; the premise is police discretion based on threat. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Security cordons are routine without any assumption about armed forces involvement or VIP requests.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option claiming I/II/III is implicit adds unsupported speculation.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not infer reactions of third parties when the statement gives none.

Final Answer:
None is implicit.