Statement — The college administration has instructed all students to stop using cell phones within the college premises. Assumptions — I. Students will stop using cell phones on campus in response to the instruction. II. 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.