Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: “Bill Clinton is the second Democrat to be re-elected as President of the United States, the other being the legendary Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Clinton has the same qualities as Roosevelt. II. A majority of Americans have faith in Clinton. III. The election campaign of Clinton’s rivals was not impressive.

Introduction / Context:
The sentence highlights a rare achievement: re-election of a Democratic President, comparing Bill Clinton with F.D. Roosevelt. We must infer what must be true for this statement to be reasonable, independent of praise or comparisons.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fact: Clinton was re-elected President.
• I: Clinton shares the same qualities as Roosevelt.
• II: A majority of the electorate placed sufficient trust (faith) in Clinton to re-elect him.
• III: The rival campaigns were unimpressive.

Concept / Approach:
Re-election requires political support strong enough to secure victory. That support is typically rephrased as “majority faith” in a democratic process. Comparisons of personal qualities (I) and judgments about opponents (III) are neither necessary nor implied by the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if rivals campaigned effectively, re-election still means the winner commanded sufficient votes, reinforcing II alone.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I or III (alone or either/or) are extraneous to the fact of re-election.

Common Pitfalls:
Overreading analogies as equivalence; assuming victory must imply opponents’ weakness.

Final Answer:
Only II is implicit