Assumptions concerning legal remedy: The advice "Why don't you go to the court if the employer does not pay your Provident Fund (PF) contribution?"—identify which assumptions are implicit (I: Courts can intervene in employer–employee disputes; II: Employers are obligated to pay PF contribution).

Given data

• Advice: Seek court action if PF is not paid by the employer.
• Assumption I: Courts have jurisdiction/authority to resolve such disputes.
• Assumption II: Paying PF is a legal obligation of the employer.

Concept/Approach
Advice to litigate presumes both the existence of a legal duty violated and an available forum empowered to enforce it.

Step-by-step reasoning
1) Without court power (I), the advice is pointless.2) Without an underlying obligation (II), there is no cause of action worth taking to court.Thus both assumptions must hold.

Verification/Alternative
Negating either I or II invalidates the usefulness of the advice.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming litigation is merely about grievance rather than enforceable rights and competent forums.

Final Answer
Both I and II are implicit.