Filing a writ in court is aimed at seeking legal action against the concerned state. Hence, both I and II are implicit.
Only I is implicit. That is why X opines to by Mercedes cars if one is desirous of buying a car.
The objective behind the notice is to attract customers.
The speaker is assuming I; that is why he has attached equal importance to both--- the constitution and adherence of the people to its provisions. The speaker assume II; that is why he delves into its causes.
if only assumption II is implicit.
The decision of State Government to increases octroi by 5% is based on the assumption that the State Government is competent to implement the decision and also get the consent of Central Government. The hike is in view of earning additional amount. Therefore, all are implicit.
The features highlighted by the advertisement are based on assumptions I and II.
Why are some excesses bound to happen? The speaker must be assuming II.
Again, to be satisfied with the success of SOG implies that the speaker must be assuming I also.
Assumption I goes very deep. Hence, it is not implicit. But, assumption II is implicit. That is why the notice stresses on buying the leaves instead of burning it.
Assumption I is implicit. That is why the advertisement highlights "and if you're looking for a change".
I is not implicit because it assumes too many things: education and free movement are beyond the scope of the statement. II is not implicit because the PM only assumes that law and order affects the common man more than prices do.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.