Statement: "Training must be given to all employees to increase productivity and profitability." Assumptions: I. Training is an essential component of productivity. II. Employees cannot function effectively without proper training. III. Profitability and productivity are mutually reinforcing.

Introduction / Context:The managerial prescription makes two links: training → productivity and productivity → profitability. We must identify which assumptions underlie this imperative without overstating them.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: training for all employees.
• Objective: increase productivity and profitability.
• Scope: organization-wide, not just remedial.

Concept / Approach:Necessity, not possibility. The statement requires that training contributes to productivity (I) and that productivity supports profitability (III). It does not require the absolute claim that employees “cannot function effectively” without training (II), which is too strong and unnecessary for the policy to make sense.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) If I were false, the mandate would be pointless; thus I is necessary.2) II claims impossibility of effective functioning without training. The policy can still be rational if training elevates already functioning employees; total inability is not needed.3) III connects productivity to profitability; the goal statement presupposes this complementarity.

Verification / Alternative check:Organizations often train to move from effective to more effective; II is not required for the policy’s logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None / Only I / Only III: Incomplete.
• All: Overstates by including II.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing “beneficial” with “absolutely necessary for any functioning.”

Final Answer:I and III are implicit.