Statement–Assumption — Department of Consumer Affairs: “If you have unresolved consumer disputes, do not feel helpless. Assert your rights. Approach the District Consumer Forum for speedy redressal.” Assumptions: I. People avoid approaching the forum due to red-tapism in its procedures. II. Offering speedy redressal will itself attract many unresolved disputes to the forum.

Introduction / Context:
The department urges consumers with unresolved grievances to use the District Consumer Forum, emphasizing “speedy redressal.” We must find which underlying beliefs are necessary for this communication.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The forum exists and offers redressal for legitimate consumer disputes.
• Citizens may feel helpless or unsure of the remedy path.
• The copy highlights “speedy” outcomes to motivate action.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is required only if the statement depends on it to make sense. Assumption I posits a specific reason—bureaucratic red-tapism—for avoidance. The appeal does not hinge on that particular cause; people could be hesitant due to ignorance, fear of costs, or time constraints. Hence I is not necessary. Assumption II claims that the promise of speed will automatically attract disputes. The call to action does not require a predictive claim about volumes; it merely advises those who already have disputes to approach the forum.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the minimal beliefs: the forum provides redressal within reasonable time; citizens should assert rights.2) Neither I nor II is a necessary precondition for issuing this advice.

Verification / Alternative check:
The message stands even if hesitation stems from reasons other than red tape, and even if uptake does not surge.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option asserting I or II is implicit overstates what the message must presuppose.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading persuasive slogans as predictions (II) or attributing a single cause to hesitation (I).

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is implicit.