Statement: The “M” Cooperative Housing Society has posted a notice at its gate: “Sales persons are not allowed inside the society.”\nAssumptions I & II:\nI. All sales persons will stay away from the society.\nII. The security guard posted at the gate may be able to stop sales persons from entering.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
Notices prohibiting entry serve as policy statements coupled with an enforcement expectation. We must determine which assumption the society relies on.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. All sales persons will comply and keep away.
• II. A gatekeeper (security guard) can intercept violators and enforce the rule.

Concept / Approach:
Prohibitory notices do not presume perfect voluntary compliance; rather, they presuppose enforceability—e.g., a guard can check, question, or deny entry to sales personnel.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The purpose of the notice is to set a rule and enable enforcement against non-compliant entrants.2) It is unrealistic and unnecessary to assume universal compliance (I). The notice is often directed as much to residents/guards as to visitors.3) The practical premise is that the guard can stop or turn away sales persons (II).4) Therefore, only II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if some sales persons attempt entry, the notice still functions given an enforcement mechanism. Without any enforcement, the notice loses effectiveness.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: overstrong and unnecessary. Either I or II: only II is needed. Neither: denies the enforcement premise. Both: includes an unnecessary universal-compliance claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming public notices rely on everyone’s voluntary obedience; most rely on enforceability.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.