Statement & Assumption — A warning displayed in a railway coach reads: “To stop the train pull the chain. Penalty for improper use is ₹500.” Which assumptions are implicit? I. Some passengers misuse the emergency chain. II. In genuine emergencies, passengers may need to stop a moving train.

Introduction / Context:
A railway notice authorizes passengers to pull the chain to stop a train but warns of a monetary penalty for improper use. We must identify which background beliefs are necessary for such a notice to be sensible.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• An emergency stopping mechanism exists (the chain).
• A penalty is prescribed for “improper use.”

Concept / Approach:
A policy statement presupposes both a legitimate purpose (emergency stopping) and a risk of misuse (non-emergency pulls). If either were absent, the dual instruction (permission + penalty) would be incoherent.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: Misuse occurs or is anticipated; hence a penalty is specified.Assumption II: Genuine emergencies can arise in which stopping the train is necessary; hence the chain exists.

Verification / Alternative check:
Transportation safety protocols commonly combine access to emergency equipment with sanctions against frivolous activation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ignores the safety rationale; “Only II” ignores the misuse deterrent; “Either” and “Neither” fail because the notice depends on both elements.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming penalties exist without any history/risk of misuse, or assuming emergency devices exist without contemplated emergencies.

Final Answer:
if both Assumption I and Assumption II are implicit