Statement–Assumption — “To reduce the adverse effects of nature on society, one must be aware, remain alert, and find solutions to fight back.” Assumptions: I. Awareness and alertness help reduce those adverse effects. II. Practical solutions to counter adverse effects exist or can be found.

Introduction / Context:
The directive prescribes three levers—awareness, alertness, and solution-finding—to reduce nature’s adverse impacts (e.g., floods, heatwaves, storms). We must test which assumptions are indispensable to justify this prescription.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Preventive behavior (awareness/alertness) can lower vulnerability or exposure.
• Mitigation/adaptation solutions exist or are discoverable.

Concept / Approach:
Prescriptive advice requires believing that the recommended actions can actually help. If either “alertness helps” or “solutions exist” were false, the prescription would be meaningless or futile.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I: Without the premise that awareness reduces risk (e.g., early warnings, preparedness), telling people to “be aware and alert” would be pointless. Thus I is implicit.2) Assumption II: If no solutions existed or could be devised (e.g., evacuation plans, heat shelters, resilient infrastructure), advising people to “find solutions” would be irrational. Thus II is also implicit.3) Hence both I and II are necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Disaster-risk-reduction frameworks rely on situational awareness plus feasible mitigation/adaptation options to reduce loss.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/II-only/Either/Neither each omits one of the two enabling premises that give the advice its force.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating the statement as mere rhetoric rather than action-guiding advice that presupposes efficacy and feasibility.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.