Statement–Assumption (Feeling Unsafe in the Hands of the Police): Statement: “It may sound harsh, but it is true that people no longer feel safe in the hands of the police.” Assumptions: I) The police are unable to protect citizens adequately. II) There is no certainty of one’s life in police custody.

Introduction / Context:
The statement expresses a general public sentiment: diminished safety confidence regarding the police. In assumption problems, we must isolate what must be true for this claim to be sensible, not what might merely be associated with it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public perception: “no longer feel safe.”
• Context: safety expectation from the police.

Concept / Approach:
If people feel unsafe with the police, at least a belief or experience exists that police protection is inadequate or unreliable. However, moving from “feel unsafe” to the extreme claim that “life is uncertain in custody” is a leap beyond what is necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: The sentiment relies on the police not meeting protection expectations. If the police demonstrably protected citizens well, the broad feeling of unsafety would not arise. Hence I is implicit.Assumption II: “No certainty of one’s life in custody” is a very specific, extreme proposition not required by the general claim of feeling unsafe. People may feel unsafe due to slow response, perceived bias, or ineffectiveness, without implying a life-threatening custody risk. II is not implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negating I undermines the basis for the sentiment; negating II leaves the statement intact because it does not hinge on custody-related lethality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: too narrow and extreme; Either/Neither: ignore the necessary inadequacy premise captured by I.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing general distrust with specific allegations about custodial deaths.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.