Statement–Assumption (Civilised States and Minority Protections): Statement: “No civilised state today can deliberately violate international declarations, conventions, and covenants relating to minorities.” Assumptions: I) All civilised states enforce such international instruments equally. II) Minorities everywhere ought to receive protection from their governments.

Introduction / Context:
The statement asserts a normative constraint on “civilised states”: they cannot deliberately violate international instruments concerning minorities. This is primarily a value-laden claim about what “civilised” implies, not an empirical claim about uniform enforcement levels.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Key norm: international commitments vis-à-vis minorities should be respected.
• Predicate: “civilised state” carries obligations/limits on conduct.

Concept / Approach:
An implicit assumption is one that must hold for the statement to be meaningful. The claim presupposes that protecting minorities is the right thing (a civilised standard). It does not require that all civilised states enforce the rules equally; variability can exist even if norms stand.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II: Necessary. If we deny that minorities should be protected, the linkage between “civilised” and “cannot violate” loses its moral footing.Assumption I: Not necessary. The statement does not hinge on empirical parity of enforcement across countries; it makes a normative assertion about what a civilised state ought not to do.

Verification / Alternative check:
Differential enforcement (negate I) does not collapse the thesis; rejecting minority protection (negate II) does.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” misreads a moral standard as a uniform practice claim. “Either/Neither” miss the necessary value premise about minority protection.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “ought” with “is”—normative standards versus descriptive uniformity.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.