The railway minister is assuming that previous ministers have failed in providing adequate safety to the passengers. That is why she will give more attention to safety, hoping that her step will prevent accident in future. Hence both the assumptions are implicit.
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.
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 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.
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.
if neither I nor II is implicit.
if only assumption I is implicit.
I is implicit here. That is why the speaker is talking about another way of living when the environment has been polluted. II can't be assumed from the statement.
From the term harsh it is clear that the speaker is assuming that the police are not serving the purpose for which they are there. The mining of the two assumptions is different. Hence either I or II.
Why are these advertisements given by these organisations? Clearly, the are assuming both I and II.
Both assumptions contradict the statements.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.