Statement–Assumption — “Live a full life. Don’t drink and drive.” — Delhi Traffic Police Assumptions: I. Driving after drinking may cause accidents. II. Some people do drive after drinking.

Introduction / Context:
“Don’t drink and drive” is a safety advisory linking alcohol consumption to driving risk. We must identify the minimum belief that must hold for this warning to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The advisory urges avoiding a specific behavior because of danger.
• It does not quantify how many people commit the behavior; it merely addresses a hazardous possibility.

Concept / Approach:
An advisory presupposes a causal risk: drinking impairs driving and can lead to crashes, injury, or death. It does not require assuming that “some people generally” do it; prevalence is not essential to the logic of the caution.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I: If drinking did not elevate accident risk, the warning would be pointless. Hence I is necessary and implicit.2) Assumption II: The statement remains meaningful even if very few people drink and drive; advisories routinely target low-frequency but high-severity risks. Therefore II is not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public notices like “Wear seatbelts” or “Don’t text and drive” do not rely on how many people currently violate the rule; they rest on the hazard itself.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II-only/Either/Both/Neither either omit the essential hazard premise or add an unnecessary frequency claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “advisory relevance” with “assumption of widespread misconduct.”

Final Answer:
if only assumption I is implicit.