Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The private bus service in the city has virtually collapsed because of the ongoing strike of its employees.” Which assumptions are implicit in this statement?

Introduction / Context:
The statement attributes the collapse of a city’s private bus service to an employees’ strike. We must test whether it assumes a right to strike or a lack of public demand for private buses.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Going on strikes has become the right of every employee.
• II: People no more require the services of private bus operators.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is necessary for the statement’s logic. Ask: if a suggested assumption is false, does the original claim lose its force?

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The sentence reports a causal link: strike → service collapse. Whether strikes are a “right” is a normative/legal claim not needed to explain a factual effect. The collapse could occur irrespective of legal rights. Hence I is not necessary.2) II contradicts the statement’s implied reality. If people did not require private buses, the impact of a strike would be minimal, not a “collapse.” The sentence presumes demand exists; II is neither stated nor required.3) Therefore, neither I nor II must be true for the collapse explanation to hold.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine the strike is illegal (no right) or perfectly legal (explicit right)—the effect on operations can still be the same. Also, demand for buses can be high; that is why a strike hurts.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Both / Either: These import claims not needed to explain the operational breakdown.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not conflate causes (strike) with judgments about rights (legality) or with demand-side conclusions.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit