Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Argument: “Science is like a news agency. Its information is extraordinarily reliable due to verification methods and longevity. Therefore, science should be read with as much interest as we read news.” Which assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
The author analogizes science to a news agency and recommends reading science with the same interest as news. We must determine which beliefs must be true for the recommendation to be persuasive.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Science encourages an investigative spirit.
• II: People read news out of interest.

Concept / Approach:
For the conclusion “read science with as much interest as news” to work, it must be true that news is typically read with interest (II). Whether science encourages investigation (I) may be true, but it is not required for the specific comparison made.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The logic is comparative: if people are already motivated to read news because it is interesting, the author wants to transfer that same level of interest to science.2) The premise focuses on reliability and verification of science; it does not require the separate claim that science inculcates investigative spirit (I) to justify “read it with interest.”3) Negate II: If people do not read news out of interest, the conclusion collapses. Negate I: Even if science did not encourage investigation, the reliability argument could still support reading it with interest.

Verification / Alternative check:
The rhetorical move hinges on the audience’s habit: news → read with interest. That habit anchors the analogy; hence II is essential.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Both / Either: I is not necessary for the specific recommendation.
• Neither: II is clearly needed.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not introduce extraneous virtues of science (like fostering curiosity) unless the argument relies on them.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit