Statement: Income controlled by women contributes much more to household food security and child nutrition than income controlled by men. Assumptions: I. Women pay more attention to household nutrition. II. Men are more interested in outside affairs than in household nutrition. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
The statement claims a comparative impact: money in women’s control benefits food security and child nutrition more than money controlled by men. We must uncover what essential premise underlies this comparative claim.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Control over income affects expenditure patterns.
• Outcome metrics: household food security and child nutrition.

Concept / Approach:
For the comparative effect to hold, it must be that women, on average, allocate income more towards nutrition-focused spending than men do. That does not require any particular statement about men’s “outside affairs.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: If women do not attend more to household nutrition, women-controlled income would not systematically outperform men-controlled income on these outcomes. Thus I is necessary.Assumption II: This adds a reason (men focus outside) that is neither stated nor required. Even if men focused equally on household matters but had different spending patterns for other reasons, the statement could still be true. Hence II is not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct a world where men care deeply about households but still allocate less to nutrition than women due to preferences, social roles, or constraints. The original statement remains intact without II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” and “either” include an unnecessary premise. “Neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the mechanism.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading stereotyping explanations (like II) into the logic; the test is logical necessity, not sociological speculation.

Final Answer:
if only assumption I is implicit.