Consider the following phrase: Statement: In an IPL match, RR made 100 runs in…

Concept: An assumption is implicit only when the statement could not logically hold unless that assumption is taken for granted, not any detail that is merely plausible or consistent with what is said. The standard test: negate the candidate assumption; if the statement's claim remains perfectly valid despite the negation, the assumption was never implicit in it.

Applying it here:

• The statement gives only a run-contribution split: bowlers were responsible for 65 of the team's 100 runs. Assumption I converts this run share into a claim about the team's roster, that 65% of the eleven players are bowlers. These are different quantities: a handful of bowlers scoring heavily produces the same 65-run figure as many bowlers scoring lightly, so the run percentage sets no floor or ceiling on the headcount percentage.

• Assumption II goes further and infers the batting order, that bowlers opened the innings, from a total that carries no information about when in the innings those runs were scored.

Cross-check: Negating I ('fewer than 65% of the team are bowlers') leaves the 65-run figure entirely undisturbed, since a small pool of bowlers can still score 65 runs between them. Negating II ('the bowlers did not open the batting') is equally consistent with the given total, since the statement never states a batting-order detail. Because the statement's claim survives the negation of both assumptions, neither was something it required us to take for granted.

Answer: Neither assumption I nor II follows from the statement, since a run-contribution split fixes neither the team's bowler headcount nor the batting order.