Statement–Assumption — “There is concern about the health of the arrested VIPs but not about the harm they have done to the nation’s health,” says a journalist. Assumptions: I. VIPs are not more important than the nation. II. The practice of showing concern for VIPs’ health should be stopped.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker criticizes media/public focus on VIPs’ personal health while ignoring national harm. We must infer the necessary value-priority premise.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The contrast implies a hierarchy: national interest outweighs VIP comfort.
• No explicit call is made to stop all concern for VIPs’ health.

Concept / Approach:
For the criticism to carry force, the speaker must assume that the nation’s well-being is paramount—this is Assumption I. Assumption II goes further, proposing an absolute cessation of concern for VIP health; the statement does not require such an extreme remedy, only a rebalancing of attention and accountability.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is implicit: without the priority of national interest, the critique would lack its moral basis.2) II is not implicit: re-prioritization does not equal abolition of concern.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public-interest commentary commonly asserts relative priorities rather than absolute prohibitions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II-only misreads the statement as abolitionist; both/either overstate; neither denies the evident priority premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating criticism of imbalance as a call for total negation.

Final Answer:
if only Assumption I is implicit