Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: A State Government suspended two Additional District Judges. Assumptions to evaluate: I. They were negligent in discharging their duties. II. There was a charge of misconduct against them. III. Government officials were biased against them.

Introduction / Context:
Suspension is typically a punitive or precautionary administrative action. We must identify which grounds must be presumed for the action to be sensible, without more details.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fact: Two Additional District Judges were suspended by the State Government.
• I: Negligence in duty.
• II: Misconduct charges.
• III: Bias of officials.

Concept / Approach:
Administrative law practice indicates suspension usually rests on at least some prima facie ground—negligence or misconduct—pending inquiry. Bias (III) is not required for the act to be rational and cannot be assumed without evidence.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Real-world suspensions often cite “pending departmental inquiry into negligence/misconduct,” confirming that I or II (at least one) underlies the action.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None is implicit: ignores the need for a basis.
• Any one of the three / Only I and III / Either I or III: improperly includes bias as a necessary option.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating possible bias with necessary grounds; overlooking standard administrative triggers.

Final Answer:
Either I or II is implicit