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.
Assumption I is implicit. That is why the advertisement highlights "and if you're looking for a change".
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.
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.
The features highlighted by the advertisement are based on assumptions I and II.
Filing a writ in court is aimed at seeking legal action against the concerned state. Hence, both I and II are implicit.
if only assumption II is implicit.
if both I and II are implicit.
Both I and II are implicit. The speaker does not consider terrorists as human. He must be assuming II. Hence, II is implicit. Why is the speaker not in favour of using human rights to protest for those found guilty? He must be assuming I also.
The tone of the statement implies that the speaker must be assuming I. That is why he uses the word 'significant' for the analysis done. The word 'although' used in the statement implies that the speaker makes the assumption that lesser the size of sample, lesser the chances of reliability.
It is not clear from the statement what the CM is exactly assuming. But the tone of the statement implies he must be assuming either I or II.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.