Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Notice: “Do not copy our software without our permission.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. It is possible to copy the software. II. Such a warning will have some effect.

Introduction / Context:
Legal/ethical warnings presuppose both feasibility of the prohibited act and some deterrent value of the notice. We test whether each is necessary for the instruction to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Prohibition against copying software without permission.
• Assumption I: copying is technically feasible.
• Assumption II: the warning will reduce violations or set grounds for enforcement.

Concept / Approach:
A prohibition is rational only if the act can occur and notice may influence behavior or provide legal clarity. Otherwise, the notice is redundant or pointless.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: impossible to copy—notice is superfluous. Negate II: warnings have zero effect—the notice is futile. Both negations undercut the rationale, confirming both assumptions are required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: drops one of the two basic reasons to post a prohibition.
• Either/Neither: fail necessity.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “effect” means perfect compliance. Even partial deterrence or clearer liability is sufficient to justify the notice.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit