Statement: "Strict traffic laws should be enforced to reduce road...
Understanding the Statement
The statement asserts that enforcing strict traffic laws can lead to a reduction in road accidents. To evaluate the assumptions, we need to analyze their validity.
Assumption I: Road accidents are caused by violations of traffic laws.
- This assumption implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship between traffic law violations and road accidents. However, road accidents can result from various factors such as weather conditions, driver behavior (e.g., distraction, fatigue), vehicle malfunction, and other unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the assumption lacks a comprehensive basis and is not necessarily implicit.
Assumption II: Strict enforcement of traffic laws can help reduce accidents.
- While this assumption is plausible, it is not a given. Strict enforcement may lead to compliance, but it does not guarantee a reduction in accidents, as other factors can still contribute to them. Moreover, the effectiveness of traffic law enforcement can vary based on context and public response. Thus, this assumption is also not implicit.
Conclusion
- Given the above analysis, neither assumption is inherently supported by the statement. The statement focuses on the idea of enforcement but does not explicitly rely on the assumptions regarding the causes of accidents or the guaranteed outcomes of enforcement.
Final Answer
Thus, the correct option is 'C': Neither Assumption I nor II is implicit.
Statement: "Strict traffic laws should be enforced to reduce road...
The statement implies that traffic law violations contribute to accidents (Assumption I). It also assumes that stricter enforcement will lead to a decrease in accidents (Assumption II). Since both assumptions support the statement, they are implicit.