Statement–Assumption (Rail Safety Outlays and Future Mishaps): Statement: “Safety will be the primary concern. I hope that these enhanced outlays will go a long way in ensuring a safe and sound journey for the millions of passengers.” — Railway Minister (in a speech). Assumptions: I) The Railways has failed to ensure adequate safety measures for its passengers in the past. II) Strengthened safety measures and higher outlays are likely to prevent railway mishaps in the future.

Introduction / Context:
The item belongs to the Statement–Assumption type in verbal reasoning. We are given a ministerial statement that emphasises safety as a primary concern and links enhanced outlays (i.e., higher spending on safety) with the goal of safer journeys for passengers. Our job is to identify which unstated beliefs (assumptions) must be true for the statement to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Emphasis on safety as “primary concern”.
• Enhanced outlays are expected to improve passenger safety.
• Millions of passengers are impacted by rail safety policies.

Concept / Approach:
In assumption questions, an assumption is implicit only if the statement depends on it. If the statement would still make sense when the assumption is denied, that assumption is not implicit. We therefore test each given assumption with a necessity lens rather than a mere plausibility lens.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Assumption I: “Railways has failed to ensure adequate safety measures.” The statement does not assert failure; it frames a future priority with added spending. Even if safety had been adequate earlier, the speaker could still prioritise safety and allocate more funds to improve or maintain standards. Therefore, the statement does not collapse when I is denied. I is not implicit.Assess Assumption II: “Safety measures are likely to prevent mishaps.” The speaker links enhanced outlays to safer journeys (“will go a long way in ensuring a safe and sound journey”). If better safety spending had no effect, the claim would be meaningless. Thus the effectiveness of safety measures is a necessary premise. II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negating II (“spending more on safety does not improve outcomes”) would make the hope of safer journeys irrational, undermining the core of the statement. This confirms II must hold.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: incorrect because I is not required. Either I or II: incorrect because the statement specifically depends on II. Neither: incorrect since II is needed.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating a decision to improve safety with an admission of total past failure; over-reading political rhetoric as evidence of deficiency.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.