Statement: Warning on tobacco products — “Smoking is injurious to health.”\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. Non-smoking promotes health.\nII. This warning is not really necessary.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
Statutory health warnings communicate risks. An assumption is implicit only if the statement depends on it to make sense. Here, the warning asserts a factual risk about smoking; it does not necessarily claim the converse (that not smoking promotes health) nor that warnings are unnecessary.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Non-smoking promotes health.
• II. The warning is unnecessary.

Concept / Approach:
A risk statement (“injurious”) does not logically require its strict converse (I). It also clearly does not require belief in its own redundancy (II).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The warning’s purpose is to inform/alert about harm — this stands without claiming non-smoking actively promotes health.2) The act of warning presupposes necessity or usefulness, the opposite of II.3) Hence neither I nor II is required.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if non-smoking were merely neutral (not “promoting” health), the harm warning is still valid. If authorities deemed warnings unnecessary, they would not mandate them.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II: each adds a claim not needed by the warning. Both/Either: still overstate; the warning needs neither.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “not harmful” with “health-promoting,” and misreading the presence of a warning as implying its own uselessness.

Final Answer:
Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.