Statement:\n“I will not resign until I am proved guilty,” declares a politician in a speech.\n\nAssumptions:\nI. There are demands or expectations for his resignation.\nII. Some charges or allegations have been levelled against the politician.\n\nWhich of the above assumptions are implicit in the statement?

Introduction / Context:
By publicly tying resignation to being “proved guilty,” the politician signals a defensive stance amid controversy. For such a stance to be relevant, two background conditions must hold: calls for resignation (I) and the existence of accusations (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement condition: resignation only upon proof of guilt.
• Assumption I: Resignation is being sought or discussed.
• Assumption II: There are allegations pending that could, in principle, be adjudicated.

Concept / Approach:
Without I, the declaration would be unprompted and rhetorically odd. Without II, the conditional clause (“proved guilty”) would have no object, making the statement meaningless. Thus both assumptions are necessary for the speech to have pragmatic force.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “proved guilty” could refer to abstract morality; in political parlance it refers to concrete charges that can be adjudicated.

Final Answer:
Both Assumptions I and II are implicit.