Statement:\n“If you are selling your car or other vehicle, retain copies of the buyer’s photo identification (driving licence, ration card, election ID, etc.). A simple way to fight terror,” says a public-interest notice by City Police X.\n\nAssumptions:\nI. Vehicles sold can be misused by terrorists.\nII. Every individual wants to buy old cars/vehicles.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions is implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
The police advise sellers to retain ID copies of buyers as a counter-terror measure. The rationale is traceability/forensics if a sold vehicle is later used in crime. We must isolate the minimal belief underpinning the advice and see whether a claim about universal buyer demand (II) is necessary.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Instruction: Keep buyer ID copies when selling vehicles.
• Purpose: Aid anti-terror efforts via traceability.
• Assumption I: Vehicles may be repurposed for terrorist activities.
• Assumption II: Everyone wants to buy used vehicles.

Concept / Approach:
Traceability helps investigation/deterrence only if there is a risk of misuse (I). The universality of demand (II) is irrelevant; the measure targets risk events, not market breadth. Therefore only I is logically required.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing prevalence with risk; preventive measures target high-impact misuse, not commonness.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.