Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only Assumption II is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement describes an observed trend: professionals migrate abroad to “greener pastures.” We must parse what the idiom and the context minimally presuppose. Remember: the task is not to judge policy but to identify the indispensable background belief(s) that make the sentence sensible as stated.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
“Greener pastures” semantically encodes comparative advantage/attraction elsewhere (e.g., better pay, facilities, lifestyle). Thus, II is embedded in the phrasing. By contrast, asserting harm to India (I) is evaluative and not necessary for the descriptive statement: one could report the migration without judging national impact.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Test II: If no attractive pull factors exist, the idiom “greener pastures” loses meaning; II is necessary.2) Test I: The sentence does not state consequences for India; removing the claim of harm does not render the observation incoherent.
Verification / Alternative check:
Rephrase without evaluation: “Every year professionals migrate abroad for perceived better opportunities.” This preserves the statement while staying neutral about impact on India, confirming I is not required.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Both/Either” incorrectly import a value judgment about national loss into a merely descriptive trend statement. “Neither” ignores the baked-in connotation of “greener pastures.”
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a widely debated policy issue (brain-drain harms) with what the sentence logically requires to be true.
Final Answer:
Only Assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments