Why are these advertisements given by these organisations? Clearly, the are assuming both I and II.
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.
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.
if only assumption I is implicit.
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.
Both assumptions contradict the statements.
Either of the two is implicit. Maybe, the speaker thinks that irrespective of how much you advertise, you won't attract tax-filers. The other possibility is: why waste money when less of it can be as effective?
I is implicit: it does matter a lot; that is why it goes on to make winners. II does not fit here.
The coach is assuming I, otherwise he won't stress on his men's potential. II can't be assumed : the intention of player is a different matter.
The speakers is assuming II; that is why he is concerned about the failure of the relationship.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.