Statement: "Problems with your spouse and too little time to talk things through? Online couples therapy may be for you." — an advertisement.\nAssumptions:\nI. People may have sufficient trust in online therapy to consider using it.\nII. Time-pressed couples expect online, therapist-mediated chats to deliver results comparable to face-to-face therapy.

Introduction / Context:
The ad promotes an online modality for relationship counseling, targeting couples short on time. Its persuasive core is feasibility and accessibility. We need to isolate the minimal assumptions that make this ad coherent.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Offer: online, professional, couples therapy.
• Audience: time-constrained couples.
• I: users may trust online therapy enough to try it.
• II: users expect results comparable to in-person therapy.

Concept / Approach:
Marketing a service requires at least an assumption of willingness to try (trust/acceptance). However, it does not require the stronger belief that clients expect equal outcomes to in-person therapy; the ad only suggests suitability (“may be for you”), not equivalence claims.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Without I, the channel would not attract users; trust in online therapy is a precondition for adoption.2) Without II, the ad can still succeed if couples expect partial benefits (convenience, earlier intervention, scheduling ease) without equivalence.3) Therefore, only I is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Tele-health adoption often begins with convenience rather than parity claims; many users accept trade-offs.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either omit the minimal adoption premise (I) or impose an unnecessary parity assumption (II).

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “suitable/accessible” with “equal outcomes.”

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.