Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “No budgetary provision for appointing additional faculty will be made, given the institute’s changed financial priorities.” Which assumptions are implicit here?

Introduction / Context:
An institute announces a budget decision tied to “changed financial priorities.” We must infer what the decision assumes about funding and competing needs.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Appointment of faculty requires funds.
• II: There are other areas beyond faculty appointments that now require more financial attention.

Concept / Approach:
A budget is a financial plan. Excluding an item because of new priorities assumes both the costliness of that item and the higher priority of alternatives.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) If hiring faculty did not require money, zero budget would not impede hiring. Thus I is necessary.2) “Changed financial priorities” implies some other heads are favored over hiring; otherwise, there would be no reason to exclude faculty appointments. Thus II is also necessary.3) Negate I: Faculty appointments are free—then the budget statement is meaningless.4) Negate II: No other area needs more attention—then withholding budget from hiring contradicts the notion of reprioritization.

Verification / Alternative check:
Budget trade-offs inherently presume opportunity cost: choosing A implies not choosing B due to limited resources—aligning with I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: Both cost and competing priority are required for the rationale.
• Either / Neither: Incompatible with the explicit logic of budget shifts.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not read the statement as a value judgment on faculty; it is a resource-allocation claim.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit