Statement — The college administration has instructed all students to stop using cell phones within the college premises.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. Students will stop using cell phones on campus in response to the instruction.\nII. Students may continue to use cell phones on campus despite the instruction.

Introduction / Context:
An administrative instruction is issued to influence behavior. For the instruction to be a sensible step toward the intended outcome, the issuer must believe that a meaningful portion of students will comply. Assuming that most will continue to violate the rule undercuts the utility of issuing the instruction and is not a necessary presupposition.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Directive: stop using cell phones within the premises.
• I: expectation of significant compliance.
• II: expectation of ongoing noncompliance despite the order.

Concept / Approach:
Statement–assumption analysis focuses on minimal beliefs that make the statement rational. Compliance is necessary for the rule to achieve its aim. Anticipating continued violation is not required; the policy is issued to reduce or eliminate that behavior.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even partial compliance validates the rationale. The instruction does not rely on predicting failure.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating minimal required compliance with perfect compliance; the assumption is that compliance will be enough to matter.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.