Statement: To make the Conditional Access System (CAS) more consumer-friendly, the Government notified that cable operators must declare pay-channel rates by June 15.\nAssumptions:\nI. Cable operators may be unable to declare rates by June 15 due to inadequate time.\nII. Businesses have their own compulsions and want to test their markets independently.

Introduction / Context:
The notification mandates price disclosure by a set date to enhance transparency for consumers. We must evaluate whether the two proposed assumptions are necessary to justify such regulation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy goal: consumer-friendliness via price transparency.
• Instrument: deadline-based disclosure.
• I: operators may lack time (implied difficulty).
• II: each firm wants to test markets on its own (generic business motive).

Concept / Approach:
Mandatory disclosure relies on the belief that transparency helps consumers compare and choose. It does not require the authority to assume operators cannot comply (I) or to adopt general statements about business motives (II). Those claims are orthogonal to the transparency rationale.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Even if there is adequate time, the rule still stands; I is not necessary.2) Whether firms want to “test markets” does not negate the consumer benefit of disclosure, nor is it a prerequisite for the rule; II is not necessary.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Disclosure regimes (MRP printing, tariff publication) operate on transparency benefits alone, independent of firms’ internal motives or time complaints.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They attach unnecessary suppositions about feasibility or business preference not needed to justify a transparency mandate.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing potential compliance challenges with assumptions required for a policy’s consumer-welfare logic.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.