Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Policy statement: “Retired persons should not be appointed to executive posts in other organisations.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Retired persons may lack the zeal and commitment needed for executive work. II. Retired persons do not take interest in the work and welfare of the new organisation.

Introduction / Context:
A blanket policy against appointing retirees to executive roles implies concerns about suitability. We must decide which concerns the policy necessarily assumes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: avoid appointing retired persons to executive posts.
• Assumption I: possible lack of zeal/commitment among retirees for such roles.
• Assumption II: retirees do not take interest in the new organization’s work and welfare.

Concept / Approach:
To justify a “should not” policy, at least one general concern must plausibly apply often enough—such as energy, drive, or adaptability. An absolute claim that retirees do not take interest is extreme and unnecessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: zeal is fully adequate—then the policy loses ground. Negate II: many retirees do take interest—the policy could still be argued on zeal/commitment concerns, so II is not necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They either install an unnecessary absolute or deny the core risk premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading policies as if they always rely on universal negatives. Often they rely on probabilistic concerns, not certainties.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit