Statement–Assumption — “The company has decided to increase the price of all its products to tackle its precarious financial position.” Assumptions: I. The decision may wipe out all previously incurred losses. II. Buyers may continue to purchase even after the price increase. III. The company has enough resources to continue production for a few more months.

Introduction / Context:
The firm opts for a uniform price hike to improve finances. We must identify the minimum beliefs necessary for this strategy to plausibly help.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Revenue = price * quantity; margins depend on cost structure and demand elasticity.
• Price hikes risk demand loss; success requires sustained purchases.

Concept / Approach:
The critical assumption is II: that demand will persist sufficiently post-hike so that revenue/margins improve. Assumption I (wipe out entire past losses) is far stronger than required; a price rise aims to improve cash flow/viability, not necessarily to erase all historical losses. Assumption III (enough resources for a few months) is irrelevant to the decision to raise prices; pricing can change immediately and does not need a buffer to be rational.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) II is necessary because if buyers stop purchasing, the hike would worsen finances.2) I is unnecessary overreach; III is not tied to price-change feasibility.

Verification / Alternative check:
Managerial pricing decisions hinge on elasticity and competitive response, not on guarantees of total loss recovery.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“II and III” adds an unneeded premise; “I and II” includes an excessive claim; “None” ignores the demand-continuity necessity; “All” overstates.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming strategic pricing must guarantee complete historical recovery.

Final Answer:
Only II is implicit