Statement–Assumption (Tarun Switches Job Due to Low Salary): Statement: Unable to manage with the present salary, Tarun joined another company. Assumptions: I) The new company has a better work environment. II) The present company offers only a moderate pay packet. III) The new company offers a higher salary to all its employees.

Introduction / Context:
Tarun’s reason for switching jobs is stated narrowly: his current salary is insufficient for his needs. We must test whether the listed ancillary claims are necessary for that decision to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Motivation: salary insufficiency at the present company.
• Action: joins another company.

Concept / Approach:
The statement does not claim anything about work environment, market positioning of the old salary (“moderate”), or across-the-board pay at the new firm. It only implies Tarun expects a better salary package for himself in the new role—an assumption not listed among I–III.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: “Better work environment” is unrelated to the salary-based reason given. Not implicit.II: “Moderate pay packet” is a vague market comparison and unnecessary. He may find it insufficient personally even if it is market-competitive. Not implicit.III: The new firm paying “higher salary to all employees” is far stronger than needed; it only needs to pay Tarun more. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many job moves are salary-driven without implying broad claims about firms or markets.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any choice including I/II/III invents extraneous premises beyond the minimal personal pay expectation.

Common Pitfalls:
Generalising an individual’s reason into company-wide attributes.

Final Answer:
None is implicit.