Statement–Assumption — Mr. X to Mr. Y: “If you wish to purchase a car, you should buy a Mercedes only, because the least number of cars stolen each year are Mercedes.” Assumptions: I. People who wish to purchase a car are financially capable of buying a Mercedes. II. Mercedes has a very small share of total cars sold, which could explain low theft numbers.

Introduction / Context:
Mr. X recommends Mercedes due to low theft counts. We must find the unavoidable premises behind this recommendation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim compares theft counts across brands.
• No mention of buyer’s budget or market shares.

Concept / Approach:
Assumption I (affordability) is not necessary for the advice to be articulated; Mr. X may simply be offering his criterion (theft risk) without regard to Y’s finances. Assumption II (small market share) would actually undercut the inference by offering an alternative explanation for low thefts (base-rate issue); it is not something Mr. X relies on—if anything he implicitly ignores it. Hence neither I nor II is a required premise.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Advice can be given irrespective of the recipient’s means; it may be impractical but does not require affordability as a hidden premise.2) II: A base-rate explanation is a potential objection, not an assumed support.

Verification / Alternative check:
Argument analysis distinguishes between supportive assumptions and rival explanations; II is the latter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only falsely imports budget; II-only mistakes a counterargument for a premise; both/either overstate.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring base-rate fallacy while evaluating comparative counts.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is implicit.