The civic administration has asked the residents of certain dilapidated buildings to move out, as these buildings will be demolished within the next thirty days. On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. The civic administration may be able to demolish these buildings as per the stated schedule. II. The residents of these buildings may vacate and stay elsewhere within the given time.

Introduction / Context:
This is a statement and assumption question about a safety action by civic authorities. The administration has asked residents of dilapidated buildings to move out, because the buildings will be demolished within thirty days. Assumptions concern the ability of the authority to carry out demolition and the willingness or capacity of residents to vacate. We must identify which of these assumptions must be true for the notice to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: The civic administration asks residents of unsafe, dilapidated buildings to move out as these buildings will be demolished within thirty days.
• Assumption I: The administration may be able to demolish the buildings as per the schedule.
• Assumption II: The residents may vacate the buildings and stay elsewhere within the given period.
• The purpose is to protect residents from possible building collapse and to clear unsafe structures.

Concept / Approach:
When authorities set a clear deadline and ask people to vacate, they must believe two things. First, that they will go ahead with demolition after the deadline; otherwise the notice would be an empty threat. Second, that residents can and will find alternative accommodation and move out in time; otherwise the instruction would be unrealistic or cruel. Both assumptions support the action: without demolition capacity, the deadline loses meaning; without expectation of vacating, the notice would not achieve the safety goal.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider Assumption I. Setting a specific demolition schedule implies that authorities believe they can arrange contractors, machinery, and legal formalities to demolish on time.Step 2: If the administration thought demolition could not be done, promising to demolish within thirty days would be misleading.Step 3: Consider Assumption II. The notice is addressed to residents, asking them to move out, which implies a belief that they can actually vacate within a month.Step 4: If authorities believed that residents had no chance of leaving in that time, the instruction would be pointless and might cause panic without solving the risk.Step 5: Hence both assumptions are required: the ability to demolish and the expectation that residents will vacate.

Verification / Alternative check:
Deny Assumption I and suppose demolition is impossible in the near future. Then warning residents about a fixed demolition date would be baseless.Deny Assumption II and suppose residents cannot move out at all. Then the notice would not improve safety, because people would remain in danger despite the instruction.This confirms that both assumptions are implicit in the statement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because it ignores the essential expectation about residents vacating.Option B is wrong because it ignores the implied ability of the administration to execute the demolition plan.Option C is wrong because the statement needs both assumptions, not just one or the other.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to assume only administrative ability matters and ignore the practical side about residents relocating.Another pitfall is to think that safety notices can be issued without any realistic plan to enforce them, which is not how assumptions work in these questions.

Final Answer:
Therefore both assumptions are implicit in the demolition notice, so the correct answer is If both I and II are Implicit.