Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: The national air carrier has decided to start a weekly air service from town A to town B. Assumptions to evaluate: I. There will be enough passengers to make the route economically viable. II. Other carriers may not start such a service. III. Residents around these towns can afford the cost of air travel.

Introduction / Context:
An airline opens a weekly service between two towns. We must infer the minimum assumptions behind such a business decision. Airlines typically evaluate demand, costs, and viability; they do not need to assume competitors’ actions or make broad socioeconomic claims beyond the core viability expectation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A weekly route is being launched by the national carrier.
• I: There will be sufficient passenger demand to justify operations.
• II: Competing carriers may refrain from launching similar routes.
• III: People around A and B can afford air travel.

Concept / Approach:
The essential test is: would the decision still make sense if an assumption were false? If not, the assumption is implicit. Strategic decisions hinge on viability expectations, not necessarily on competitor inertia or sweeping affordability claims.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Airlines often inaugurate routes anticipating connecting traffic or subsidies; viability rests primarily on demand (paid or supported), not on assuming competitors’ absence or broad affordability.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I and II / II and III / All: add nonessential suppositions.
• None of these: incorrect because I is clearly required.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that every new route implies a blanket socioeconomic judgment; conflating competitive speculation with decision necessity.

Final Answer:
Only I is implicit