Statement: “In India, short of nearly every essential commodity, there is one product we stock in excess: ministers.” Assumptions: I. Increasing the number of ministers makes stocking essential commodities easier. II. The strength of the ministry (number of ministers) should be reduced. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a sardonic observation contrasting scarcity of essentials with an overabundance of ministers. It lampoons governmental bloat and implies a corrective stance regarding cabinet size.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Essentials are scarce; ministers are plentiful.
• The comparison is rhetorical, highlighting misallocation/excess.

Concept / Approach:
We seek what must be assumed for the critique to hold. The jab presumes that having many ministers is undesirable and should be trimmed; it does not depend on any causal claim that more ministers help stock commodities.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: “More ministers make stocking essentials easier.” The quip suggests the opposite—too many ministers despite shortages—without implying that increasing ministers helps with supply. This is not necessary.Assumption II: “Ministry size should be reduced.” The entire thrust is that the country has an excess of ministers while lacking essentials; this assumes reduction is preferable or warranted. Hence II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
If II were false (no problem with many ministers), the contrast loses bite. If I were true/false, the sarcasm stands regardless—there is no dependence on I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both/either” wrongly involve I; “neither” denies the implied prescriptive stance; “only I” conflicts with the satire’s logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating a rhetorical comparison as a functional/causal claim about supply chains.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.