Statement: “Bar Council of India (BCI) will go on a hunger strike to protest implementation of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act,” says the Chairman of BCI.\nAssumptions I–III:\nI. The amendment has loopholes and will hurt litigants’ interests.\nII. All BCI members will welcome the decision.\nIII. A hunger strike in front of the court will pressure the authority.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
Collective protests by professional bodies rest on (a) a belief that the targeted policy is harmful, and (b) a belief that the protest tactic can exert influence.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. The amendment is materially harmful to litigants—grounds for protest.
• II. Unanimous internal support is expected (every BCI member welcomes it).
• III. The chosen tactic (hunger strike) will apply pressure on decision-makers.

Concept / Approach:
For the announcement to be rational, BCI must believe the policy is harmful (I) and that the method can work (III). Unanimity (II) is not necessary; decisions can be taken by leadership/majority.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Without I, there is no cause to protest.2) Without III, the tactic lacks purpose; other tactics might exist, but the chosen one presupposes expected pressure.3) II is stronger than needed; organizations often proceed despite dissent.

Verification / Alternative check:
The protest remains coherent even if some members oppose it. Hence II is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: omits the tactical-efficacy premise. Only I and II / All: add unnecessary unanimity.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming unanimity in collective actions; most hinge on perceived harm and tactic effectiveness.

Final Answer:
Only I and III.