Statement: “Television P — the neighbour’s envy, the owner’s pride.” — a TV advertisement. Assumptions: I. Catchy slogans appeal to people. II. People tend to feel envious of neighbours’ superior possessions. III. People want to annoy their neighbours.

Introduction / Context:
The slogan appeals to status signalling and social comparison. The advertiser uses a memorable line to trigger desire. We must identify necessary assumptions behind such a line.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim leverages envy and pride as motivators.
• No explicit claim about intent to irritate neighbours.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption must be reasonably believed by the advertiser for the slogan to be persuasive.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: If catchy slogans did not appeal, the creative choice would be pointless. Implicit.II: The pitch relies on social comparison: people are often sensitive to neighbours’ possessions. Implicit.III: “People want to be annoyed/annoy neighbours” is neither suggested nor required. Not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even absent real malice, signalling pride or triggering envy can influence purchase behaviour.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only III / I and III / All: incorrect because III is not assumed.
• Only II: misses I, which underlies the creative device.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading exaggerated literal meanings into figurative advertising language.

Final Answer:
I and II are implicit.