Statement:\n“Never touch or even go near any unclaimed object lying around in public areas, however attractive it may seem,” warns City Police X in a public-interest notice.\n\nAssumptions:\nI. Common people may not suspect that attractive, unclaimed objects could be dangerous.\nII. Unclaimed objects lying in public areas may be dangerous or disastrous.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions is implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
The police caution against touching or approaching unclaimed objects, emphasizing that attractiveness can be deceptive. We must determine the minimal belief required for such a warning to be rational. Is it necessary to assume something about public perception (I), or is the inherent danger (II) sufficient?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Instruction: Do not touch/go near unclaimed objects in public areas.
• Qualifier: “However attractive they may seem.”
• Assumption I: People typically do not consider such objects dangerous.
• Assumption II: Such objects may indeed be dangerous (e.g., explosives, hazardous materials).

Concept / Approach:
A public warning must be grounded in a credible hazard. Therefore, the essential assumption is that unclaimed objects may be dangerous (II). While the phrase “however attractive” hints at possible temptation or misperception, the warning would still be justified even if the public already suspected danger; the presence of risk alone merits a categorical instruction. Thus I is not necessary, though it may explain the rhetoric.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating persuasive framing (“however attractive”) with the logical foundation of the rule (danger).

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.