Statement: Parents of students are demonstrating at the Legislative Council to protest against fee-hike revisions announced by the capital’s educational institutions. Assumptions: I. The parents are unable (or find it unreasonable) to afford the increased fees. II. Given large-scale protests, the Legislative Council may direct institutions to stop or roll back the fee hike. Choose the option that best identifies which assumption(s) is/are implicit.

Introduction / Context:
Why protest at the Legislative Council? Because protesters believe (a) the fee hike harms them materially and (b) the Council can influence or reverse the decision. These are classic implicit premises behind targeted demonstrations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Parents assembled at a political/legislative venue.
• Issue: recent fee hike by educational institutions.

Concept / Approach:
Demonstrations typically presume both grievance and a forum with remedial power. If either is absent, the action loses point or venue logic.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: Necessary. Without economic hardship or perceived unfairness, mass protest lacks motivation.Assumption II: Necessary. Protesting specifically at the Legislative Council implies belief in its capacity to influence/command institutions.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the Council had no authority or the fees were easily affordable, the protest's location/scale would be irrational.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any single-assumption choice omits a key driver; “neither” negates the rationale for venue and action; “either” is insufficient.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming protests are purely symbolic—here the venue signals a remedy expectation.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are implicit.