Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Public appeal: “The civic authority appeals to reduce water usage as there may be an acute shortage in the coming weeks.” Assumptions to test: I. There will be no rain in the near future. II. People are ready to follow the authority’s advice.

Introduction / Context:
Authorities often issue conservation appeals when a shortage is possible. We must determine which assumptions are required for such an appeal to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Appeal: reduce water usage due to possible shortage.
• Assumption I: no rain will come soon.
• Assumption II: at least some people will respond to the appeal.

Concept / Approach:
A sensible appeal presumes potential effectiveness (some compliance). It does not require a forecast of zero rainfall; a shortage can occur despite rains due to supply, reservoir levels, or demand spikes.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate II: if nobody will follow, the appeal loses purpose. Negate I: it might rain, yet conservation can still be prudent—appeal remains sensible.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I only / Either / Neither / Both misrepresent the non-need for rainfall certainty and the necessity of expected compliance.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “possible shortage” with a precise weather prediction. The appeal is precautionary, not meteorological.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit