Statement–Assumption — “A brand is essentially a seller's promise to consistently deliver a specific set of features, benefits, and service to buyers.” Assumptions: I. A branded good always gives satisfaction to the buyers. II. An unbranded good possesses the same set of features as branded goods.

Introduction / Context:
The statement defines a brand as a promise of consistent delivery of certain features, benefits, and service. In assumption questions, we identify the minimum beliefs that must be true for the statement to make sense—not what might often be true in practice.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Brand = promise of consistency in features/benefits/service.
• No claim is made about guaranteed satisfaction.
• No claim is made about what unbranded goods offer.

Concept / Approach:
Implicit assumptions must be necessary. Adding universal claims (like “always satisfies”) typically overcommits beyond the definition. Similarly, dragging in comparisons with unbranded goods is not required by the definition offered.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assumption I: “Always gives satisfaction” is stronger than “promise of consistent delivery.” Products can deliver promised features yet fail to satisfy some buyers. Hence I is not necessary.2) Assumption II: The definition of brand does not require any statement about unbranded goods having the same features. So II is not necessary.3) Therefore neither I nor II is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Marketing texts treat brands as signals of expected performance; satisfaction is contingent on buyer needs and experience, not guaranteed by the definition.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/II-only/Either/Both add claims not demanded by the definition, thus not implicit.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “promise of features” with “guaranteed satisfaction,” and importing comparisons with unbranded offerings.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is implicit.