Statement–Assumption — “Feelings of mutual respect among communities are the ultimate safeguard. Once that respect goes, no Constitution can substitute for it.” Assumptions: I. Mutual respect is a social virtue that a Constitution cannot itself manufacture. II. Law cannot be expected to ensure goodwill and harmony among citizens on its own.

Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts organic social virtues (mutual respect) with formal legal frameworks (Constitution). It claims that law cannot replace lost civic goodwill. We must detect the necessary premises.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Civic harmony arises from attitudes and norms, not only statutes.
• Legal texts can set rights/obligations but cannot alone produce interpersonal respect.

Concept / Approach:
Bearing the claim “no Constitution can substitute,” two assumptions are embedded: (I) the virtue in question is not something a Constitution can directly create; (II) therefore, expecting law alone to ensure goodwill is unrealistic. Both are necessary to sustain the contrast and the normative warning.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is implicit: if law could itself generate the virtue, substitution would be possible.2) II is implicit: the statement denies legal sufficiency for social harmony absent respect.

Verification / Alternative check:
Political theory distinguishes “law on the books” from “norms in practice”; the latter require culture, education, and leadership beyond constitutions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Picking only one weakens the contrast; “neither” contradicts the statement’s core message.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming enforceability equals social internalization of values.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.