Both are sort of restatements.
It is hard to reduce the generalised version to a particular field. Other possibilities may also be considered, such as sanitation problem,-----Hence I is not implicit. II is implicit because it is this that makes the speaker take potshot at metros.
I is not implicit. The statement has no relationship to other games. II is implicit because the speaker talks about the consequence only after assuming this.
Why did the court intervene and direct the state's executive machinery?
I is a restatement. But II is implicit because it is on this assumption that the comparison has been made.
The NHRC is assuming both ; that is why this new system has been made compulsory.
if both I and II are implicit.
From the tone of the statement it is clear that the speaker is not satisfied with the large (excess) number of ministers in India and wants reduction in this number. Hence II is an assumption. I is not an assumption.
Both assumptions I and II have nearly same meaning. Clearly, the speaker is assuming that courts are not fulfilling the objective (provide justice to deserving people) for which they were established. The rich can change the judgment in their favour (throwing dice).
if neither I nor II is implicit.
Taking defeat seriously and taking lesson from the defeat are two different matters. Hence I is not implicit. Why do we need to take lesson from our defeat? The answer clearly is to be successful in future. Hence II is implicit.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.