Statement: "Rich people are more prone to have heart attacks." (repaired from likely typo "Rice people").\nAssumptions:\nI. Most deaths among rich people are due to heart attacks.\nII. Poor people do not have heart attacks.

Introduction / Context:
The statement claims comparative proneness: rich people are more likely to suffer heart attacks than others. We must test which hidden beliefs are necessary for this claim to make sense, not merely beliefs that could be true alongside it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A comparative claim about incidence among rich people.
• No claim about proportions of total deaths by cause.
• No claim eliminating heart attacks among poor people.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is implicit only if the statement’s sense or persuasive force collapses without it. We check I and II by negating them and seeing whether the original statement still stands.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) If I is false (most rich deaths are not from heart attacks), the statement about higher proneness can still be true; “more prone” is frequency-relative, not cause-of-death majority.2) If II is false (poor people do have heart attacks), the comparative “more prone” can still hold: both groups may experience heart attacks, but rates differ.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is required.

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparatives do not entail exclusivity or dominance among causes; they only assert a higher likelihood relative to another group.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Both: Each adds content beyond the comparative claim.
• Either I or II: Neither is necessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “more prone” with “only group affected” or “top cause of death.”

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.