Statement–Assumption (Changing Fund-Raising Strategy): Statement: “If routine advertisement appeals do not yield the desired response for a fund-raising campaign, appeal to the public’s regional sentiments.” Assumptions: I) When the first strategy underperforms, it is desirable to adopt an alternative strategy. II) People are more likely to contribute money when appropriate, targeted appeals are made.

Introduction / Context:
The statement recommends a conditional switch in fund-raising strategy. For this advice to make sense, two beliefs must underlie it: that switching strategies is desirable when results are weak, and that targeted appeals can unlock contributions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Adopt an alternative if the current strategy underperforms.
• II: Properly framed appeals cause more people to donate.

Concept / Approach:
Use the negation test. If shifting tactics were undesirable (negate I), the recommendation collapses. If targeted appeals could not increase giving (negate II), the proposed regional appeal would be pointless.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The clause “if … do not yield the desired response” presupposes openness to alternatives (I).2) “Appeal to … regional sentiments” presupposes that such appeals can improve donations (II).3) Both I and II are therefore necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Campaign design frameworks (A/B testing, message–audience fit) rely on the same logic: iterate strategies and use targeted messaging to move outcomes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or Only II leaves the recommendation baseless on one side; “Neither/Either” undermines its rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “regional” with “divisive”—the logic is about targeting, not exclusion.

Final Answer:
Both Assumptions I and II are implicit.