Statement–Assumption — Notice in a sweet shop: “While weighing sweets, we do not include the weight of the box used to carry the sweets.” Assumptions: I. The cost price of a box is not less than the cost of sweets per gram. II. Customers prefer to pay only for the weight of the sweets they buy.

Introduction / Context:
The notice clarifies pricing fairness: pay for sweets, not packaging. We must spot the required customer-belief premise.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sweets are sold by weight; boxes add tare weight.
• Fair practice removes tare from net weight billed.

Concept / Approach:
For the notice to matter, the shop presumes customers value and expect being charged only for edible content (II). Assumption I about relative cost prices is irrelevant; even if boxes are cheap, fairness still dictates tare exclusion. The practice is anchored in consumer preference for transparent weighing, not in comparative cost metrics.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) II is necessary—otherwise, the notice would not reassure or influence customer satisfaction.2) I is unnecessary—box cost vs sweet cost does not determine the weighing policy.

Verification / Alternative check:
Retail weighing standards (net vs gross) emphasize consumer fairness over component cost comparisons.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only and both import an irrelevant premise; “neither” ignores the fairness expectation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing pricing ethics (net weight) with cost accounting of packaging.

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.