Statement — “Take this X-brand oven home and you can prepare very tasty dishes which you were unable to prepare earlier.” (Advertisement)\nAssumptions:\nI. The user knows or can follow recipes for tasty dishes but lacked a suitable oven earlier.\nII. Only the X-brand oven can cook very tasty dishes.

Introduction / Context:
Promotional statements often attribute improved outcomes to the product. Here, the ad claims that owning the oven enables dishes previously not prepared—suggesting equipment was the limiting factor, not knowledge.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: With X-brand oven, you can now make dishes you could not make earlier.
• Assumption I: The user can follow recipes/has ingredients but lacked a suitable oven.
• Assumption II: Only X-brand ovens can make very tasty dishes.

Concept / Approach:
The usefulness of the ad rests on the oven removing the earlier constraint. It does not need exclusivity (that only X can do it); claiming exclusivity would be an unnecessary exaggeration.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) If the user had no recipe knowledge or interest, the oven alone would not ensure success; the ad presumes capability but missing equipment.2) Therefore I is necessary.3) II is too strong; other brands may also bake well. The ad sells capability, not uniqueness-of-brand.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if other ovens work, the claim “with this oven you can do it” remains coherent. Thus II is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both: overstate. Neither: contradicts the ad’s causal logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading exclusivity into capability claims.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.