Statement–Assumption (Long-Term Policy vs. Short-Term Remedies): Statement: “The long-term health of the nation and its democratic polity should be the primary concern of all political parties—short-term remedies are, at best, pain-killers.” Assumptions: I) Short-term policy helps political parties win elections. II) Only long-term democratic policy serves the nation’s best interests.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker urges a primary commitment to long-term national and democratic well-being, dismissing short-term fixes as mere “pain-killers.” The question is which underlying belief is indispensable for that prioritisation to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Value judgment: long-term policy > short-term “pain-killers.”
• Desired party behaviour: focus on durable national health.

Concept / Approach:
An implicit assumption must be necessary. The claim does not depend on whether short-termism helps parties win elections; it does depend on the belief that long-term approaches best serve the nation, otherwise the prioritisation makes no sense.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II: Necessary. If long-term policy were not truly better for national/democratic health, instructing parties to treat it as the “primary concern” would be baseless.Assumption I: Not necessary. Electoral payoff of short-termism may or may not exist; the recommendation to prefer long-term policy does not rest on a claim about electioneering benefits of the alternative.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if short-term tactics do not win votes (negate I), the argument stands. But if long-term policy is not superior (negate II), the argument collapses.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ties the conclusion to a nonessential, tactical premise. “Either/Neither” ignore the clear value hierarchy embedded in the statement.

Common Pitfalls:
Over-reading political tactics into a normative prioritisation; assuming election mechanics are required for a policy value claim.

Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.