Statement & Assumption — “Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language and its study in school is obsolete.” Which assumptions are implicit? I. Sanskrit has no utility in day-to-day life. II. Schools should teach students only what relates directly to their future pursuits.

Introduction / Context:
The statement makes two linked claims: (a) Sanskrit is “dead,” i.e., not used in ordinary life; and (b) studying it at school is “obsolete.” The first claim undergirds the second by appealing to contemporary utility.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Dead” denotes negligible everyday usage.
• Curricular obsolescence is argued from present-day relevance.

Concept / Approach:
Assumption I is necessary, because the “dead language” label is the direct basis for calling school study obsolete. Assumption II, however, is stronger and not strictly necessary: even without a doctrine that schools teach “only” vocationally relevant matter, one could still argue that scarce instructional time should prioritise widely used languages or subjects—without asserting an exclusive utilitarian rule for all schooling.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: If Sanskrit did retain day-to-day utility, the “dead/obsolete” conclusion would be seriously weakened. Hence I is implicit.II: Not required; the conclusion can be reached on relative-priority grounds without an absolutist curriculum doctrine.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” treats two distinct claims as interchangeable necessities; “II only” overstates the needed premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “less utility” with a universal rule excluding non-utilitarian study.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.