Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only Assumption II is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Public warnings paired with penalties function both as deterrents and enforcement notices. For such a warning to be credible, authorities must be able to enforce it. The assumption that drivers will ignore the warning is not necessary; the notice can be aimed at prevention, not merely punishment after noncompliance.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:The essential presupposition is enforceability (II). The notice must carry operational credibility. Whether some drivers ignore the warning is not a required assumption for putting up the warning; ideally, all would comply. Thus I is not necessary.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the deterrence mechanism: threaten impound to reduce phone use while driving.2) Deterrence requires real enforcement capacity (II).3) The statement does not require assuming drivers will ignore the rule (I).Verification / Alternative check:Even if most drivers comply, the notice remains sensible; enforcement readiness preserves deterrence credibility.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: unnecessary and pessimistic.Either/Both: wrongly include I.Neither: wrong because enforcement capacity must be assumed.Common Pitfalls:Confusing the existence of a penalty with an assumption about widespread violation.
Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments