Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: Residents wrote to the Corporation asking it to restore normal drinking-water supply immediately, because the present supply is inadequate. Assumptions to evaluate: I. The Corporation may ignore the letter. II. The municipality has enough water to meet demand if managed properly. III. Water supply to the area was adequate in the past (“restore normalcy”).

Introduction / Context:
Citizens request immediate restoration of “normal” water supply, implying a deviation from an earlier, acceptable state. We must detect which assumptions are necessary for this appeal to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Present situation: supply is inadequate.
• Request: restore normalcy immediately.
• I: The Corporation may not act on the letter.
• II: The municipality has adequate water overall.
• III: There existed a prior period of adequate supply in this area.

Concept / Approach:
“Restore normalcy” presupposes a baseline state that used to exist. It does not require assuming bureaucratic inaction (I) or city-wide sufficiency of raw water (II); shortages can stem from distribution faults, leakages, or scheduling—factors the authority can fix even under constrained total supply.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many utility complaints seek reinstatement of a former service level, reinforcing that III alone is fundamental.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I and III / II and III: Add nonessential claims.
• Only II: Mistakenly ties the request to system-wide water abundance.
• None of these: Incorrect because III clearly follows.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming any service complaint implies adequate central resources; often the issue is local distribution rather than aggregate supply.

Final Answer:
Only III is implicit