Statement–Assumption — “People of State X were forced to eat rats due to starvation and malnutrition,” states an NGO in a public-interest writ petition (PIL) to the court. Assumptions: I. The court will issue notice to the State Government to relieve people of such acute distress. II. The court has the power to direct the State to ensure protection and preservation of human rights.

Introduction / Context:
A public-interest litigation claims extreme deprivation and seeks judicial intervention. For such a filing to be meaningful, certain background beliefs about the court’s role must be taken for granted.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There is a grave allegation of starvation and malnutrition in State X.
• An NGO has approached the court through a PIL mechanism.
• The petition asks for relief and enforcement of basic human rights.

Concept / Approach:
In Statement–Assumption questions, we test which premise is necessary for the statement/action to make sense. Filing a PIL presupposes that the court has jurisdiction and power to issue directions for rights protection (Assumption II). However, it does not require the stronger, predictive belief that the court will issue notice (Assumption I). Petitioners hope for relief, but the action of filing does not depend on certainty of that specific procedural outcome.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Test I: The NGO can file even if the outcome is uncertain; hence I is not necessary.2) Test II: Without the belief that the court can direct the State on human-rights matters, filing a PIL would be pointless. Thus II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
The essence of PILs is faith in judicial power to address rights violations, not a guarantee of a particular order.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“I only” overcommits to a specific result; “either/both” are too broad; “neither” ignores the obvious jurisdictional premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing the possibility of relief (court has power) with the certainty of a particular procedural step (notice).

Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.