Statement: "If you are a first-class graduate with at least 65% marks, you are eligible to apply for the officer post in our organization," says an advertisement. Assumptions: I. There will be an adequate number of applicants satisfying the educational criteria. II. Graduates with less than 65% marks may not perform well on the job. III. Candidates with 65% or more marks are likely to perform well on the job.

Introduction / Context:An eligibility advertisement sets a threshold (first class, ≥ 65%). We must determine which background beliefs justify announcing this criterion to attract applicants and predict performance.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Threshold is designed to filter applicants.
• Objective: recruit candidates likely to perform well.
• Outreach only makes sense if enough qualified people exist.

Concept / Approach:Two assumptions support the ad: (I) a sufficient pool exists, and (III) the threshold correlates with job success. Assumption II is stronger than needed (sweeping negative about < 65%) and not required to justify the criterion.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Without I, the ad would be futile; adequate supply is presupposed.2) Without III, the cutoff would be arbitrary; the organization presumes predictive validity of the score.3) II is not necessary; even if some candidates below 65% can perform well, the threshold can still be a pragmatic filter.

Verification / Alternative check:Recruitment criteria often trade sensitivity for practicality; they do not imply categorical incompetence below the line.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:They either exclude a necessary assumption (I or III) or include the unnecessary sweeping claim (II).

Common Pitfalls:Treating a cutoff as a universal statement about ability.

Final Answer:I and III are implicit.