Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Policy note: “The government is making efforts to boost tourism in State X.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Tourism in State X dropped following political unrest. II. Special discounts in air fare have been announced.

Introduction / Context:
The statement merely declares efforts to boost tourism, without specifying causes or tactics. We must decide whether the two proposed assumptions are required for that declaration to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A general governmental effort to promote tourism in State X.
• Assumption I: the decline was due to political unrest.
• Assumption II: airfare discounts have been announced as the measure.

Concept / Approach:
An implicit assumption must be indispensable to the statement. Causes of decline and specific measures are not mentioned; efforts can be justified for growth ambitions, seasonal strategies, new branding, or competition, independent of political unrest or airfare cuts.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: no political unrest drop—efforts still make sense. Negate II: no airfare discounts—efforts could be via other tools. Thus neither is implicitly required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Either / Both: They import specifics the statement never depends on.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every policy is reactive. Many promotions are proactive or multi-pronged without a single identifiable cause or tool.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit