Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: "The civic authority will shift all factories inside city limits to locations outside the city to reduce urban environmental pollution." Which assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
Policy announcements rest on feasibility and expected outcomes. Here, the city plans to relocate factories to reduce pollution. We must detect the necessary premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Pollution levels in the city may reduce after factories are shifted.
• II: Enough usable land is available outside city limits for these factories.
• III: Many factories may shift to smaller towns to remain profitable.

Concept / Approach:
For the plan to be meaningful, the action must plausibly help the goal, and the plan must be logistically possible. Speculation about profit strategies in other towns is not necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I is necessary: if relocating did not reduce city pollution, the measure would not serve its stated aim.II is necessary: relocation requires available sites; without land, the plan is infeasible.III is not necessary: the statement does not rely on where firms choose to move beyond outside the city, nor on profitability tactics in smaller towns.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negating I or II undercuts purpose or feasibility. Negating III leaves the decision unchanged.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I only or II only: omit one essential pillar.
• II and III: includes an irrelevant business prediction.
• None: ignores purpose and feasibility assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not import extra market dynamics when the policy statement does not depend on them.

Final Answer:
Only I and II are implicit