Statement — “The employees’ association urged its members to stay away from the annual function because many of their demands were not met by management.” Assumptions: I. A majority of members may not attend the function. II. The management may cancel the annual function.

Introduction / Context:
A call to boycott presupposes that substantial compliance is possible and meaningful. It does not require the event’s cancellation by management.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Urge members to avoid the function as demands were unmet.
• Assumption I: Many members may heed the call, reducing attendance.
• Assumption II: Management might cancel the function.

Concept / Approach:
The effectiveness of a boycott rests on participation (I). Event cancellation (II) is a speculative consequence, not assumed by the urging itself.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Necessary belief: a significant number will comply → I.2) Cancellation is not essential for the appeal to make sense.

Verification / Alternative check:
The function can still be held with low turnout; the call remains rational without II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both/Neither misread the minimal necessity.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming downstream outcomes as assumptions of the initial call.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.