Consider the following phrase: Statement: A line from Ram’s appointment letter…

Concept: In Statement-and-Assumption reasoning, an assumption is an unstated premise that a statement takes for granted — something its writer relies on without saying it outright. An assumption is implicit if it is the natural, reasonable presumption that the statement's own wording and purpose point to, not something that must be the only logically conceivable explanation.

Application: Ram's appointment letter fixes a probation period and says his performance will be reviewed at the end of it for confirmation.

• Assumption I says performance is generally not well known at the time of appointment. This is the natural reading behind the clause: deferring confirmation to a later review is exactly what an employer does when a new hire's ability is not yet established at hiring.

• Assumption II says one generally tries to prove one's worth during probation. The letter fixes a probation period specifically so Ram's suitability can be observed before confirmation; the natural presumption behind such a clause is that candidates, in general, are expected to actively try to demonstrate their ability during that period — which is exactly what II states.

Cross-check: Contrasting the other readings confirms this:

• "Only I is implicit" would treat the probation period as passive time-marking, with no real expectation of demonstrated effort — but the letter frames the clause around a performance review, which presupposes something being actively demonstrated during the period.

• "Only II is implicit" would mean Ram's ability was already known at hiring — but then confirmation would not need to wait for a later review at all.

• "Either I or II" treats the two as alternative readings of the same fact, as if accepting one rules out the other — but I concerns what is known at the point of joining, while II concerns what happens during the two years that follow; these describe two different stages, not two rival explanations of a single stage.

Result: Both premises are the natural presumptions behind the appointment letter's own wording, so both I and II are implicit.