Statement: Science is like a news agency: it supplies information, but with exceptionally high reliability due to rigorous verification and its ability to endure for centuries. Therefore, science should be read with as much interest as the news.\nAssumptions:\nI. Science encourages an investigative spirit.\nII. People read the news out of interest.

Introduction / Context:
The argument analogizes science to a news agency but emphasizes superior reliability from verification and longevity of claims. It concludes that science should be read with as much interest as news. We must locate the tacit beliefs enabling this comparison and prescription.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Science uses elaborate techniques of verification; its findings often survive centuries.
• Readers typically consume news with interest.

Concept / Approach:
To motivate "read science with as much interest as news," it helps (a) that science fosters investigation (making it worth reading) and (b) that news is indeed read because it is interesting (the benchmark of comparison).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The premise about verification suggests an underlying value: inquiry and scrutiny matter; thus science cultivates an investigative mindset (I).2) The conclusion equates the interest level of science with that of news, implying news is already read with interest (II).3) Both I and II are needed to bridge from analogy to the normative recommendation.

Verification / Alternative check:
If news weren't read out of interest, the comparative exhortation would fail. If science didn't promote investigation, the basis for equal or greater interest would weaken.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I/Only II: Each alone is insufficient to support the full recommendation.
• Either: Both are jointly helpful and implicitly relied upon.
• Neither: Contradicts the passage's logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that analogical conclusions often import assumptions from both sides of the comparison.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit.