Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Advice from A to B: “According to me, you should get your child examined by a specialist doctor.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Specialist doctors diagnose better than ordinary doctors. II. B will certainly not agree with A’s advice.

Introduction / Context:
We analyze the unstated beliefs that make a recommendation to consult a specialist rational. We must test each assumption for necessity, not mere plausibility.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Recommendation: see a specialist.
• Assumption I: specialists provide superior diagnostic ability relative to general doctors.
• Assumption II: B will definitely reject the advice.

Concept / Approach:
For an advice to see a specialist to be sensible, A must believe a specialist offers added value. The advice does not require any specific reaction from B—acceptance or refusal is separate from the logic of the recommendation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: specialists are no better—then the suggestion is baseless. Negate II: B might agree—advice still stands. Only I is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They introduce an unnecessary behavioral prediction or deny the clear medical-value premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing persuasive rationale (value of a specialist) with predicted compliance (B’s response).

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit