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).
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.
if both I and II are implicit.
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.
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.
I is not implicit. It is possible that the situation is improving instead of deteriorating, but the statement is being made because this improvement is not enough. On the other hand, II is implicit because it is this essentiality that makes the speaker talk about what the Govt needs to do.
The statement may be given by a lawyer or any other critic. So we can't assume that this is given by an opposition leader. But the speaker is assuming II. That is why he takes about people rejecting the changes.
I is implicit: this is what the speaker has in mind when he talks of having "utilised the employment potential." The speaker is assuming II that is why he is relating the employment potential of railway with the political career of the leader.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.