Statement–Assumption (Price Hike to Fix Finances): Statement: The company has decided to increase the price of all its products to tackle its precarious financial position. Assumptions: I) The company may be able to wipe out the entire past losses through this decision. II) Buyers may continue to purchase the company's products even after the price increase. III) The company has adequate resources to continue production for a few more months.

Introduction / Context:
In statement–assumption questions, an assumption is a condition the author must be taking for granted for the stated action or claim to make sense. Here, a company raises prices to address a weak financial position. We must infer which underlying beliefs are necessary for this decision to be reasonable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The company is in a precarious financial position.
• Action chosen: increase prices of all products.
• Objective: improve financial health (revenue and/or margin).

Concept / Approach:
For a price hike to help finances, demand must be at least somewhat price inelastic so that total revenue or contribution margin rises. Assumptions about wiping out all earlier losses or having enough working capital for months are not essential to justify the immediate pricing decision.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: “Wipe out entire losses” is too strong and not required. A price hike could be justified even if it only improves cash flow or profitability partially. Hence I is not necessary.Assess II: If customers stop buying post-hike, revenue could fall; the plan relies on continued purchasing at the higher price. Therefore, II is necessary and implicit.Assess III: Whether the firm has enough resources to continue production for a few months is not logically required to decide a price increase today; that is a separate liquidity/operations issue. Hence III is not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Pricing decisions routinely assume some tolerance of buyers (brand loyalty, differentiation, limited substitutes). No policy needs the promise of wiping out all past losses; incremental improvement suffices. Working-capital adequacy is important in practice but not a logical prerequisite for choosing a new price list.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“I and III” or “II and III” wrongly include nonessential conditions; “None” disregards the indispensable demand-tolerance assumption; “Only I” elevates an unnecessary and overly strong claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing desirable outcomes (full loss recovery) with necessary assumptions; importing general business facts (cash buffers) into the logical core of the pricing decision.

Final Answer:
Only II is implicit.