Statement — The company chairman urged employees to refrain from making long personal calls during working hours in order to boost productivity.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. A majority of employees will respond positively to the chairman’s appeal.\nII. Most employees will continue to make long personal calls during working hours despite the appeal.

Introduction / Context:
Management advisories are issued with the belief that employees will modify behavior sufficiently to realize the intended benefit (here, better productivity). An assumption that most will ignore the appeal contradicts the purpose of making it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Appeal: avoid long personal calls during work.
• Goal: boost productivity.
• I: many employees will comply, at least partially.
• II: most will not comply (negates the rationale).

Concept / Approach:
For an appeal to be instrumentally rational, the issuer must expect a meaningful compliance rate. Expecting widespread noncompliance would undercut the appeal’s utility, making II an implausible presupposition of the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even partial compliance among a majority can yield noticeable productivity improvement, aligning with the chairman’s objective.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “majority will respond” with “everyone will comply.” The necessary assumption is not perfection, but meaningful response.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.