Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions: Statement: The entire North India, including Delhi and neighbouring states, remained without power for the whole day of 19 December as the northern grid supplying electricity to seven states collapsed yet again. Assumptions: I. The northern grid had collapsed earlier. II. A multi-state grid system is an ineffective way to supply power.

Introduction / Context:
The statement reports a widespread blackout, noting the grid “collapsed yet again.” Your task is to identify which hidden assumptions are necessary for the report to be meaningful. Such questions test comprehension of implicature (what is implied but not directly stated).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A multi-state northern grid collapsed on 19 December, causing an all-day outage.
• Assumption I: “Yet again” implies a prior collapse.
• Assumption II: The grid system (serving multiple states) is inherently ineffective.

Concept / Approach:
Words like “again” or “yet again” presuppose earlier occurrence. However, calling a system ineffective is an evaluative judgment not required for merely reporting the event. The news report can stand without condemning the architecture of grid-based supply.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negation test for I: If there were no earlier collapse, the phrase “yet again” would be inappropriate, undermining the sentence. Negation test for II: Even if grid systems are effective overall, a particular collapse can still occur; the report remains valid. Thus II is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Either / Neither / Both: Each ignores the presupposition triggered by “yet again.”

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a factual report of failure with a universal claim about system design.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit