Statement — The leader of the main opposition party asserted that the call for “chakka jam” turned out to be a great success across the entire state.\nAssumptions:\nI. In the future, people will support the main opposition party.\nII. People were probably convinced about the reason behind the strike call.

Introduction / Context:
Political statements that claim success for a strike (chakka jam) hinge on present participation and acceptance of the cause. We must separate assumptions about current conviction from speculative future outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: The strike call “was a great success in the entire state.”
• Assumption I: People will support the party in the future.
• Assumption II: People were convinced about the reason for the strike, enabling participation.

Concept / Approach:
To label the strike successful now, it must be assumed that people accepted its rationale sufficiently to cooperate today. Forecasting future party support is not required to assess current success.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Success of a strike today depends on present buy-in, not future voting preferences.2) Therefore Assumption II (public conviction about the cause) is necessary.3) Assumption I (future support) is speculative and not essential to the assertion of “success.”

Verification / Alternative check:
It is possible that people supported the strike’s issue but will not support the party later. The statement about success still stands, showing I is unnecessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: ignores present conviction. Either: both are not interchangeable. Both: adds unnecessary speculation. Neither: contradicts the logic of current success.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing present success with long-term popularity. Assumptions must be tied to the statement’s immediate claim.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.