Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: “As our business is expanding, we need to appoint more staff,” the owner of a company informs existing employees. Assumptions to evaluate: I. The present staff is not competent. II. Hiring more staff will itself further expand the business. III. Suitable people for the new posts will be available to recruit.

Introduction / Context:
This is an assumption-detection problem from critical reasoning. A company owner announces that because business is expanding, the firm needs to appoint more staff. We must identify which background beliefs must be true for the announcement to be meaningful, without being explicitly stated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A business is currently expanding.
• A decision is announced to appoint additional staff.
• Assumption I: Existing staff are incompetent.
• Assumption II: Hiring more staff will itself cause further expansion.
• Assumption III: Suitable candidates for recruitment exist and can be hired.

Concept / Approach:
Use the necessity (negation) test: an assumption is implicit if, when negated, the speaker’s plan becomes pointless or incoherent. Also distinguish causes from consequences and avoid importing value judgements (e.g., competence) not required by the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even high-performing teams need headcount when demand grows. Feasibility of recruitment is the only essential background condition for the decision to make operational sense.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None is implicit: ignores the feasibility assumption (III).
• Only I / Only II / All are implicit: add claims (competence or self-driven growth) not required by the owner’s reasoning.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “need more people” with a critique of current competence; treating hiring as the cause rather than a response to expansion.

Final Answer:
Only III is implicit