Statement: The school has decided to raise the number of students per classroom to seventy from the next academic session to bridge its income–expenditure gap. Assumptions: I. Fees from the additional students will be sufficient to bridge the gap to a large extent. II. The school will certainly be able to enroll enough additional students in every class next session.

Introduction / Context:The management's policy change attempts to alleviate a budget gap by increasing class size. We must detect which presuppositions the plan relies upon.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Decision: increase intake per section to 70.
• Stated purpose: bridge the financial gap.
• No assurance of demand or guaranteed enrollments.

Concept / Approach:A plan to raise capacity for revenue implicitly assumes that added capacity monetizes sufficiently. Certainty about filling every seat, however, is stronger than required and typically not assumed in a policy announcement.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) For the decision to be sensible, added seats must materially improve revenue (Assumption I).2) Assumption II claims certainty of full utilization in each class, which is not necessary; partial but substantial filling can still bridge much of the gap.3) Hence only I is required.

Verification / Alternative check:Even if some classes don't reach seventy, higher average occupancy could still improve finances.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II: Too strong and not required.
• Either/Both: Overstate necessities.
• Neither: Rejects the revenue logic needed to justify the decision.

Common Pitfalls:Treating managerial optimism as certainty; necessity is about what must hold, not what is hoped for.

Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit.