Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: “Bombay (Mumbai) people were spellbound, mesmerized, and went wild when they saw Michael Jackson’s hi-tech, pulsating, megawatt performance.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Shows accompanied by cutting-edge technology can have a magical effect on audiences. II. Bombay audiences were never impressed by Indian musicians. III. Michael Jackson is a superstar-level performer.

Introduction / Context:
The sentence reports an extraordinary audience reaction to Michael Jackson’s show, explicitly calling out its “hi-tech” and “megawatt” nature. We must discern which assumptions must hold to support the described impact without importing unwarranted generalizations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observation: The audience reaction in Mumbai was extreme and enthusiastic.
• I: Advanced show technology can intensify audience response.
• II: Mumbai audiences have never been impressed by Indian musicians.
• III: Michael Jackson is a superstar-grade singer/performer.

Concept / Approach:
The statement ties reaction to the character of the performance—“hi-tech, pulsating.” It does not compare Indian artists with MJ nor claim a universal lack of appreciation for them. Nor does it need the evaluative label “super singer” to explain the cited reaction; the sentence already grounds the effect in the spectacle.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If a different global act used similar spectacular production, a similar reaction could occur, supporting reliance on I rather than II or III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Only II and III / Either II or III: Import irrelevant or extreme claims.
• Only I and III: Adds an unnecessary performer-quality assumption.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing production value effects with judgments about entire classes of performers; over-attributing impact to celebrity status when the cited cause is explicit.

Final Answer:
Only I is implicit