Statement–Assumption — “I have not received telephone bills for nine months in spite of several complaints,” writes a telephone customer to a daily. Assumptions: I. Every customer has a right to receive bills regularly from the telephone company. II. Complaints highlight service defects that are expected to be corrected.

Introduction / Context:
A customer publicly complains about not receiving bills for nine months despite lodging complaints. The letter aims to prompt redress. Which premises are necessary?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Telephone services are billed periodically and documented.
• Consumers rely on timely bills to track dues and avoid penalties/disconnection.
• Escalation to media implies a belief that service lapses should be corrected.

Concept / Approach:
For the grievance to be meaningful, two beliefs must hold: (a) customers are entitled to regular billing (a service standard), and (b) pointing out defects through complaints is a path toward correction. Without I, the complaint lacks normative force; without II, complaining would be futile.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Regular billing is a basic utility obligation; the complainant’s indignation presupposes this right. Necessary and implicit.2) II: By publicizing repeated complaints, the customer expects corrective action. Thus II is also implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consumer-protection norms treat timely billing as a service standard, and complaint mechanisms exist precisely to rectify lapses.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one assumption omits the other indispensable premise; “neither” would deny the basis for the letter.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the letter merely vents frustration; it also calls for rectification, hence II.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.