Statement: “If the city bus running between Ram Nagar and Sant Colony is extended to Vasant Vihar, it will be convenient.” — Appeal of Ram Nagar residents to the city bus company Assumptions I & II: I. The convenience of the bus company is more important than consumers’ needs. II. The bus company is indifferent to the aspirations of Sant Colony residents. Choose the option that correctly identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
Residents request a route extension citing convenience. Such appeals commonly rest on user need and potential service improvement, not on negative claims about the operator’s priorities or attitudes toward other localities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. The operator values its own convenience over consumer needs.
• II. The operator is indifferent to Sant Colony’s aspirations.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption must be necessary for the appeal to make sense. To ask for a route extension, one need not assume any hostility or misplaced priorities by the company; one merely believes the extension would increase convenience for users.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The appeal expresses a desired change to improve convenience; it does not evaluate the company’s values or attitudes.2) The request would remain entirely sensible even if the company highly valued consumers and cared about Sant Colony; therefore I and II are not required.3) Hence neither I nor II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the operator were consumer-centric, residents would still appeal for extension. If the operator were attentive to Sant Colony, the appeal’s logic does not change. Thus the appeal does not depend on either assumption.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or only II: add unnecessary, negative claims. Either: still unnecessary. Both: least justified.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting grievances into neutral user requests; appeals can be made without presupposing ill intent.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II are implicit.