Statement–Assumption — “To check fire incidents in the Walled City, godowns of hazardous chemicals and paper will be shifted to Narela and Ghazipur respectively.” Assumptions: I. Fires cannot occur in Narela or Ghazipur. II. Paper is a highly combustible material (and proximity to hazards elevates risk).

Introduction / Context:
Authorities plan relocation of high-risk storage (hazardous chemicals, paper) away from a dense urban core to mitigate frequent fires.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Chemicals and paper raise fire load; clustering in a congested area amplifies damage potential.
• Relocation seeks risk reduction, not risk elimination everywhere.

Concept / Approach:
An implicit assumption must be essential. The plan presumes these inventories meaningfully contribute to current fire risk, which hinges on their combustibility (paper) and hazard profiles.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I (no fires at new sites) is unnecessary. Policy makers rarely assume zero risk; they aim to lower risk in the vulnerable zone.2) Assumption II (paper is highly combustible) is necessary; otherwise, moving paper godowns would not help mitigate fire incidents.

Verification / Alternative check:
Urban fire codes treat paper and chemicals as high fire-load commodities; separation from dense habitation reduces catastrophe potential.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/Either/Both/Neither either posit zero-risk (too strong) or ignore the combustibility premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming risk elimination rather than risk redistribution and reduction.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.