Whenever a warning of this sort is given, the following assumptions are implicit: I. There is something foul in the air; there can be no smoke without fire; and II. The warning will have a positive effect in checking the problem.
I may be a conclusion but it is not an assumption. Hence I is not implicit. Nor is he assuming about the role of journalists in the society before delivering his statement. Hence II is not implicit.
The speaker is assuming II; that is why he has used the term irrespective while comparing the gold production with price hike (inflation). I is not implicit; the assumption is that price hike affects gold production.
The term only is objectionable in I. Hence I is not implicit. why has the President directed the Election Commission to curtail the expenditure? Definitely, he is assuming II.
Why the need to use the electronic voting machine? Chief Election Commissioner is definitely assuming I. Any system won't be recommended if it is not convenient to use for common people. Hence II is implicit.
When the High Court passes an order, it assumes I. II is not implicit because the court has merely assumed that the film is controversial. Whether it is objectionable will be established only when the decision is finally taken.
I is implicit; it is to dispel this myth that the statement has been issued in public interest. but being inferior in quality is not the same as being adulterated; hence II is not implicit.
The need to treat properly the elderly and the disabled stem from both the assumptions.
The speaker is assuming I; that is why he has started so. In his opinion as the economy is growing well, employment rate should increase. He is not assuming about any other factor that influences employment.
From the statement it is clear that the speaker has no doubt about the credibility of inquiry reports. Hence I is not implicit. II has too strong a world in never.
I is not implicit because it implies that value-based voting still prevails, though it does not have too long a future. But the statement clearly suggests that value-based voting is absent. What about Assumption II, which talks of the potential of value-based voting? Well, the only potential the speaker has in mind is that it's a step in the positive direction. But can it undo what has been done ? we don't know.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.