Statement–Assumption — Ex-captain on pre-match toss: “When Mr X and Mr Y stepped out, it was evident that one had a positive frame of mind while the other was tense, fearing defeat and elimination.” Assumptions: I) Panic always sets in when a team plays after a spate of defeats. II) Some days a player reaches magical, unstoppable form making others look inadequate. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
The comment observes contrasting mindsets—confidence vs. tension—before a match. The inference is based on demeanor at the toss; it does not claim universal rules about panic after losing streaks or about “magical days” of performance. We must check whether either sweeping statement is necessary to support the observation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observed: one captain looked positive; the other seemed tense, fearing elimination.
• Assumption I: panic always follows a spate of defeats.
• Assumption II: occasionally a player becomes unstoppable and others look inadequate.

Concept / Approach:
Neither I nor II is required. The ex-captain can form an opinion about mindset from body language or context (knockout stakes) without presuming an absolute rule about defeats always causing panic (I). Likewise, the statement says nothing about “magical days” or unstoppable players (II). It is a plain, situational assessment of attitude, not a theory of performance extremes.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A single tense demeanor can arise from many factors (injuries, team form, pressure) without invoking universal rules or “magical form” narratives.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing I or II smuggles in extraneous generalizations; “either” still overcommits; “None of these” would imply both are necessary, which they are not.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting commentary clichés into minimal observational claims.

Final Answer:
Neither Assumption I nor II is implicit.