Statement: In a bid to discourage cattle owners from letting their animals roam on public roads, the Municipal Corporation of city X has increased the fine from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000.\nAssumptions:\nI. Increasing the fine may reduce the stray-cattle problem on roads.\nII. The higher fine is a sufficiently large amount to make owners retrieve their cattle quickly.

Introduction / Context:
The statement reports a policy change: the Municipal Corporation raises the monetary penalty for allowing cattle to stray on roads from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. The goal is deterrence—reducing road obstruction, accidents, and sanitation hazards. The task is to identify which assumptions must be true for the decision to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observed action: fine enhanced from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000.
• Stated aim: discourage owners from letting cattle loose on roads.
• Assumption I: a higher fine can decrease the stray-cattle menace.
• Assumption II: the new amount is large enough that owners will promptly retrieve cattle.

Concept / Approach:
In statement–assumption problems, an assumption is implicit if the action would lose purpose without it. Policy tools like fines rely on deterrence logic: higher expected cost influences behavior. However, they do not require that the exact rupee amount be “large” for every owner—only that increasing penalties tends to improve compliance.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The move from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000 presupposes that penalties influence behavior; otherwise, the increase would be purposeless. This supports Assumption I.2) Assumption II is stronger: it asserts sufficiency and uniform responsiveness (“quite a large sum” and “should prompt” early retrieval). The statement does not need this stronger claim; owners vary in income and responsiveness, and enforcement also matters.3) Therefore, only Assumption I is necessary for the policy to make sense.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if Rs 5000 is not “large” for some owners, incremental deterrence can still operate through repeated penalties, seizure powers, or escalations. The policy’s logic stands with I alone.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II: Sufficiency of amount is not required; the policy could work partially or via enforcement.
• Either / Both: Include an unnecessary strength claim in II.
• Neither: Rejects deterrence logic underpinning fines.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “some positive effect” with “guaranteed and immediate compliance.” Policies generally assume probabilistic deterrence, not absolute.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.