Statement & Assumption — “Nowadays some people have made it a business to organise rallies and demonstrations against big projects, citing environmental and social reasons.” Which assumptions are implicit? I. Big projects are necessary. II. Environmental and social reasons attract people towards rallies.

Introduction / Context:
The statement alleges that some organisers leverage “environmental and social reasons” to mobilise rallies against big projects, treating it like a business. The necessary premise is about the motivational power of those reasons for crowd mobilisation, not the inherent necessity of big projects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Rallies are organised against big projects.
• Organisers cite environmental/social reasons.
• They do it as a “business,” implying predictable turnout/attention.

Concept / Approach:
For such a “business” to work, the cited reasons must reliably attract participants (Assumption II). Whether big projects are necessary (Assumption I) is not required to explain the organisers’ behaviour; the claim critiques motives/tactics, not the absolute value of large projects.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test II: If environmental/social appeals did not draw people, the “business” model would fail. Hence II is implicit.Test I: The allegation stands irrespective of whether big projects are necessary; thus I is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Mobilisation logic depends on salience and resonance of reasons with the public—captured by II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options featuring I inject a policy stance not needed to support the allegation.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating a critique of tactics/organisers with a blanket endorsement of big projects.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.