Statement — When the hammer does not work, use a sledgehammer.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. A sledgehammer is more powerful than a regular hammer.\nII. Different tools are appropriate for different conditions and tasks.

Introduction / Context:
This verbal reasoning item tests your ability to identify what must already be believed for an advisory statement to make sense. The advisory says to switch from a hammer to a sledgehammer when the first tool does not work. For that advice to be rational, at least two background ideas must be accepted: the sledgehammer delivers greater force than a regular hammer, and choosing tools should depend on task requirements and operating conditions. Without these, the recommendation would be arbitrary or ineffective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Advice: when the hammer fails, escalate to a sledgehammer.
• Assumption I: a sledgehammer has more power/impact than a hammer.
• Assumption II: tool selection varies with conditions; different tasks demand different tools.

Concept / Approach:
Statement–assumption questions ask what must be true for the statement to be meaningful. If a sledgehammer were not more powerful, switching would not help. If using different tools for different conditions were not sensible, the advice to change tools would lack basis. Therefore both assumptions underlie the statement’s logic.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If a sledgehammer were equal or weaker, or if all tools were treated as interchangeable regardless of context, the switch would not improve outcomes. The statement implicitly rejects both of those possibilities, confirming I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Do not overread the statement to imply that only sledgehammers ever work or that all failures must escalate to maximum force. The minimal assumptions are simply greater power and context-based tool selection.

Final Answer:
Both Assumption I and II are implicit.