Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit): Statement: "As there is a great demand, every person seeking tickets of the programme will be given only five tickets." Assumptions: I. The organizers are not keen on selling the tickets. II. No one is interested in getting more than five tickets.

Introduction / Context:
This is a typical assumption question about a ticketing policy. Because demand is high, the organizers restrict each buyer to a maximum of five tickets. We must decide which statements must be true for the restriction to make sense.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Maximum five tickets per person due to great demand.
• Assumption I: Organizers are not keen to sell tickets.
• Assumption II: No one wants more than five tickets.

Concept / Approach:
An implicit assumption is a necessary condition for the decision's logic, not a mere possibility. A per-person cap is a rationing device to distribute scarce tickets fairly and widely when demand is strong. It does not imply lack of interest in selling nor that no buyer wants more than five tickets.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negation testing: Suppose people do want more than five tickets; the cap still serves its purpose. Suppose the organizers do want to sell all tickets; a cap ensures wider reach without contradicting that goal. The argument holds without I or II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I/Only II/Either/ Both: Each incorrectly treats a nonessential claim as necessary. The policy is justified by scarcity and fairness, not by these assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating rationing with unwillingness to sell, or assuming the cap mirrors customers' natural demand. Caps exist because demand often exceeds a fair-share limit.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit