Statement: Please do not use lift while going down - an instruction on the top…

Concept: In statement-and-assumption questions, an assumption is implicit only when the statement's action or instruction necessarily presupposes it. Apply the negation test — negate the assumption; if the statement's basis collapses without it, the assumption is implicit; if the statement still makes sense without it, the assumption is not implicit.

Application to this statement:

• Load-limitation claim (assumption I): Negate it — suppose the lift works perfectly fine while descending. The notice can still stand, since it could be aimed at discouraging unnecessary lift use or managing peak-time descent load regardless of the lift's mechanical capacity. The instruction does not collapse when this claim is negated, so it is not necessarily presupposed.

• Facility-vs-right claim (assumption II): Negate it — suppose lift access were a guaranteed right rather than a facility. A discretionary notice could then not validly restrict it, since an entitlement doesn't yield to an administrative instruction that way. The fact that this notice exists and functions as a real restriction only makes sense if lift access is something management can regulate — a facility, not a right. So this claim has to hold for the notice to stand — it is necessarily presupposed.

Cross-check: Since only the facility-vs-right claim survives the negation test while the load-limitation claim does not, the situation is neither an either/or pairing between the two nor a case where neither holds — exactly one of the two listed assumptions is required.