Statement–Assumption — “The TV industry requests the government to lower customs duty on colour picture tubes to 10% so that colour TV sales can reach 10 million units next fiscal.” Assumptions: I) Excess protection for the domestic CPT industry has slowed CTV growth. II) Overprotection encourages predatory pricing by domestic manufacturers. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
An industry lobby seeks a tariff cut on a key component (colour picture tubes) to spur downstream sales (colour TVs). In assumption problems, we ask: what belief must the requester hold for the request to be coherent?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy sought: reduce CPT customs duty to 10%.
• Claimed effect: push CTV sales to 10 million in the next fiscal.
• Assumption I: present protection impedes CTV growth (e.g., raises costs/prices).
• Assumption II: overprotection leads to predatory pricing by domestic producers.

Concept / Approach:
Assumption I is necessary: the ask presumes that the current tariff elevates costs enough to dampen demand, and that lowering it will expand sales volume. Without that causal link, the request lacks justification. Assumption II introduces a specific market-conduct claim (predatory pricing) that is not required to argue for a tariff cut; the industry can rationally demand lower input tariffs even if no predation occurs, simply because it lowers retail prices and boosts affordability.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even in perfectly competitive domestic CPT markets (no predation), a tariff cut still reduces costs and can raise quantity demanded; therefore II is not essential.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” divorces the request from its core price-cost mechanism; “either” overstates; “neither” denies the obvious cost pass-through premise; “None of these” implies both are required, which is false.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a sufficient extra complaint (predation) with a necessary premise.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.