Statement: Poverty persists under conditions where human resources are undervalued while land and other material resources are overvalued. Assumptions: I. Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources. II. There should be a balance between the valuation of human and material resources. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The statement offers a diagnostic claim: poverty endures when human resources (skills, education, health, entrepreneurship) are undervalued relative to material resources (land, capital, natural assets). Your task is to spot what the author must be assuming for this diagnosis to make sense, not to add attractive but unnecessary policy claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Poverty is linked to mispricing/misvaluation across resource classes.
• Human resources are systematically undervalued; material resources are overvalued.
• The relative valuation gap sustains poverty.

Concept / Approach:
Identifying implicit assumptions means finding propositions that must be true for the argument to retain meaning. A diagnostic about “persistence” typically presumes that correcting the imbalance is relevant to improvement; it does not necessarily guarantee total eradication of poverty.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Assumption I: “Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources.” This goes beyond the statement. The author claims a condition that sustains poverty, not that a single lever will eradicate it entirely. Poverty may diminish or improve by rebalancing values without being fully eradicated. Hence I is not necessary.Assess Assumption II: “There should be a balance between human and material resource valuation.” Since the statement blames relative under/over-valuation for persistence, it implicitly treats balance (or at least a less distorted valuation) as desirable for remedy. If balance were irrelevant, the diagnostic loses force. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine the author believing that valuation balance does not matter; then citing misvaluation as a cause of persistence would be incoherent. By contrast, the author need not believe in total eradication via HR enhancement alone for the claim to stand.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” and “either” wrongly make eradication (I) necessary. “Neither” contradicts the reliance on valuation balance (II). “Only I” is too strong and unnecessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “a key driver” with “a complete cure”; and confusing relative-balance claims with absolute guarantees.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.