Statement — The driver of a large truck pulled the emergency brakes to avoid hitting an auto-rickshaw that suddenly cut in front of the truck.\n\nAssumptions —\nI. The auto-rickshaw driver may steer away from the oncoming truck and clear the path.\nII. The truck driver may be able to stop the truck in time before impact.

Introduction / Context:
Emergency braking is an immediate evasive action taken by the driver of a heavy vehicle to prevent a collision. The act itself presupposes the belief that braking can reduce speed sufficiently—possibly to zero—in the available distance to avoid impact. It does not require any particular expectation about the other vehicle’s steering response, which is outside the truck driver’s control.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Situation: an auto-rickshaw abruptly enters the truck’s path.
• Action: the truck driver applies emergency brakes.
• I: expectation about the auto-rickshaw’s evasive steering.
• II: expectation that braking can avert or mitigate collision by stopping in time.

Concept / Approach:
Statement–assumption tasks look for what must be true for the stated action to be rational. Braking presupposes that braking helps; it does not require any assumption about the other driver’s forthcoming actions. Even if the auto does nothing, braking still reduces risk and impact severity. Hence only II is necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even where the auto cannot steer, braking still makes sense to minimize or avoid collision. Therefore I is not required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Attributing assumptions about third-party behavior when the focal action is self-contained.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.