Statement–Assumption — Citizen’s view on Special Operation Group (SOG): “When forces like SOG are set up, some excesses are bound to happen and some innocents suffer. But we should be satisfied with the success of SOG.” Assumptions: I. Suffering of some innocents is a small price in the larger public interest. II. It is difficult for SOG to achieve desired results without any negative impact.

Introduction / Context:
The speaker justifies supporting SOG despite acknowledging “excesses” and harm to innocents. We must surface the normative and practical premises that make the conclusion follow.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Security operations may impose collateral costs.
• The speaker evaluates outcomes in aggregate (“we should be satisfied”).

Concept / Approach:
Two assumptions are necessary. (I) A utilitarian trade-off: limited innocent harm is acceptable relative to public safety gains; otherwise the recommendation to “be satisfied” would be incoherent. (II) A feasibility claim: zero-collateral-damage outcomes are impractical, i.e., some negatives are “bound to happen”; else, endorsing harmful excesses would be needless.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Without the moral trade-off (I), the conclusion collapses—harm would be intolerable.2) Without the practicality claim (II), one would demand better design rather than accept excesses.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public-security debates often hinge on “necessary evil” reasoning, combining pragmatic limits with proportionality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” lacks the feasibility premise; “only II” lacks the normative license; “either” is insufficient; “neither” contradicts the text.

Common Pitfalls:
Missing that both a value premise and a practicality premise are invoked.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.