Statement — The Government has decided to relocate all factories from the city with immediate effect to reduce pollution.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. City pollution is caused only by the factories located there.\nII. People will be able to manage daily travel to the relocated factories.

Introduction / Context:
The policy goal is to reduce city pollution by relocating factories. For the statement to be meaningful, it is sufficient to assume that factories are a significant contributor to pollution; it does not require the extreme claim that factories are the only cause. Moreover, the statement does not hinge on commuting feasibility for workers—while important in practice, it is not necessary to make sense of the government’s pollution-reduction objective as stated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Decision: relocate all factories from the city immediately.
• I: pollution is caused only by factories (excludes vehicles, dust, power plants, etc.).
• II: commuters will be able to manage daily travel to new locations.

Concept / Approach:
Assumption I is too strong; policy rationale needs only that factory emissions are a major/sizable source, not the only one. Assumption II concerns operational feasibility for workers, which, while relevant for implementation, is not a logical prerequisite of the statement’s pollution-centric intent.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if other sources remain, removing one major source can still reduce pollution; and even if commuting is challenging, the policy’s environmental logic survives. Thus neither I nor II is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “only” into causal attributions or smuggling in implementation logistics as logical necessities.

Final Answer:
Neither Assumption I nor Assumption II is implicit.