Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: Despite less-than-normal rainfall in the lakes’ catchments during the first two monsoon months, the water authority has not imposed any cut in the city’s water supply. Assumptions: I. Rainfall during the remaining monsoon period may be adequate for normal supply. II. The current water level in the supplying lakes may be sufficient for normal supply.

Introduction / Context:
Authorities are maintaining normal water supply despite subnormal rainfall early in the monsoon. We must identify which minimal beliefs justify this decision. Such questions examine how decisions depend on alternative sufficient reasons.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fact: Early monsoon rainfall is less than normal.
• Decision: No water cuts yet.
• Assumption I: Future rainfall may compensate.
• Assumption II: Existing storage may already suffice.

Concept / Approach:
When a decision can be rationalized by one of two independent possibilities, the test answer is typically “either I or II.” The authority could be banking on improved future inflows, or on adequate present storage. The decision does not require both simultaneously, only at least one to be plausible.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Authorities often set trigger levels based on storage and forecast. If either indicator is favorable, cuts are deferred. This reflects a standard water-resource management rationale.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Both: Overstate what is required; both are not simultaneously necessary.
• Neither: Ignores that some reason must exist to justify the “no cut” stance.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that early deficit must instantly lead to cuts; overlooking role of storage buffers and forecast-based planning.

Final Answer:
Either I or II is implicit