Statement–Assumption — “The management of XYZ Pvt. Ltd. asked the workers’ union to call off the strike immediately; otherwise the management would be forced to close down the factory.” Assumptions: I. No alternative other than closing the factory is left for the management. II. Such a threat may influence the workers’ union to reconsider its decision.

Introduction / Context:
The management issues an ultimatum linking the continuation of a strike to potential factory closure. We must identify the minimal beliefs necessary for this communication to be rational.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A strike is ongoing; production is affected.
• Management threatens closure as leverage.
• No details are given about finances, alternatives, or negotiations.

Concept / Approach:
A threat functions as a strategic signal intended to alter the other party’s behavior. For it to be meaningful, the speaker must assume the threat has some chance of changing the union’s calculus. However, management does not need to believe there are literally “no alternatives.” It may still have other options (e.g., mediation, partial operations, temporary shutdown) and yet choose to escalate rhetorically.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I claims impossibility of all alternative solutions. The statement does not assert or require such an absolute. Threats are often bargaining devices even when options exist.2) Assumption II is essential: without believing the threat could move the union, issuing it would be pointless. Thus II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negotiation theory treats credible threats as attempts to shift payoffs. Credibility can be partial but still potentially effective.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/Both/Either/Neither either impose an unnecessary absolute (I) or deny the persuasive intent (II).

Common Pitfalls:
Reading an ultimatum as proof of helplessness rather than as a negotiation tactic.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.