Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The speaker criticizes awarding top bravery medals to police during a war-free tenure, implying the awards are undeserved or mischaracterized when tied to anti-terror operations within the country.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
The statement’s critical thrust is normative: it questions the merit of awarding top medals for domestic anti-terror actions. It does not hinge on a comparative harm assessment between war and terrorism.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The criticism presupposes that the cited acts should not be valorized at the “top bravery” level (I).2) Nothing in the statement claims that war is preferable or less harmful than terrorism; the no-war remark only sets context, not a harm comparison (II).3) Hence only I is implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if terrorism were more harmful than war, the argument could still dispute the appropriateness of medals; conversely, even if war were worse, the complaint could remain. Thus II is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: unrelated. Either I or II: only I is necessary. Neither: false; some negative judgment about awarding medals is required. Both: adds an unnecessary comparative claim.
Common Pitfalls:
Overreading contextual mentions (war/no-war) as evaluative claims about harms.
Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit.
Discussion & Comments