Statement:\n“The Law Commission of India has called for sweeping changes in life insurance laws—not only to promote insurance business in the country but also to protect policyholders from hassles in claiming settlements.”\n\nAssumptions:\nI. Policyholders’ interests—especially in claim settlement—have not been fully satisfied under the current regime.\nII. It is feasible to enact sweeping changes to life insurance laws.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions are implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
The Commission recommends sweeping law changes to boost business and protect policyholders in claim settlement. For such a recommendation to be meaningful, two beliefs must hold: that current protections are inadequate (I) and that large-scale reform is institutionally possible (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Objective 1: Promote insurance penetration/operations.
• Objective 2: Protect policyholders from claim-settlement hassles.
• Assumption I: Existing frameworks inadequately protect policyholders (especially in claims).
• Assumption II: Legislative/administrative capacity exists to carry out sweeping changes.

Concept / Approach:
Reform proposals are solutions to perceived problems; hence I is built in. Furthermore, advocating “sweeping changes” presumes feasibility within the legislative–regulatory apparatus (II). Without II, the recommendation would be utopian. Without I, there is no problem to solve regarding policyholder hassles.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “promotion of business” alone drives the recommendation; the text explicitly includes consumer protection, which presupposes an existing shortfall.

Final Answer:
Both Assumptions I and II are implicit.