Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: “There is a big boom in the drug business; many jhuggi–jhopari dwellers in Delhi can be seen pedalling small pouches of smack and brown sugar.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Drug addiction is increasing in the country, particularly in the capital. II. All major drug dons live in jhuggi–jhopari areas. III. Most slum dwellers will do anything for money.

Introduction / Context:
The statement links a “boom” in drug business with visible street-level peddling by slum residents in Delhi. We must determine which assumptions are minimally required and which are overgeneralizations unrelated to the claim.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observation: Increased visible peddling; claim of business “boom.”
• I: Drug addiction (demand) is rising, especially in Delhi.
• II: All top drug lords reside in slums.
• III: Most slum dwellers would do anything for money.

Concept / Approach:
“Boom” denotes a surge in trade volume, which typically rests on increased demand or easier supply. Citing numerous petty peddlers in Delhi suggests strong local demand and market expansion, making assumption I reasonable. Assumptions II and III are sweeping, stigmatizing generalizations that the statement neither requires nor implies.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if dons live elsewhere and most slum dwellers are law-abiding, a boom can still be evidenced by more street peddlers serving rising demand—preserving I and rejecting II and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Only III / I and III / Either I or III: These introduce unnecessary or unethical generalizations.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing market-scale growth with moral judgments about entire communities; assuming leadership residence matters for retail-level observations.

Final Answer:
Only I is implicit