Statement: The concession in rail fares for the journey to hill stations has been cancelled because it is not needed for people who can spend their holidays there. Assumptions: Railways should give concession only to needy persons. Railways should not encourage people to spend their holidays at hill stations.

Given data

• Statement: Concession to hill stations cancelled because it is not needed for those who can afford such holidays.
• Assumption I: Concessions ought to be reserved for needy persons.
• Assumption II: Railways should not encourage hill-station holidays.

Concept/Approach
The stated reason appeals to 'need' (affordability) as the criterion, not to discouraging tourism.

Step-by-step reasoning
I: If concessions are for the needy, then people who can afford vacations don't need subsidy. This belief underlies the cancellation → implicit.II: The statement doesn't say vacations are undesirable; it only says subsidies are unnecessary for the well-off. Thus II is not implicit.

Verification/Alternative
Negating I (concessions need not be limited to the needy) would undermine the given reason; negating II leaves the reason intact.

Common pitfalls

• Reading a moral stance against holidays into a fiscal rationale about need.

Final Answer
Only assumption I is implicit.