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.
if both I and II are implicit.
if only assumption II is implicit.
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.
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.
Why the need to instil such a sense of pride among the people? The speaker must be assuming I. II is not implicit because one does not desire for a need unless one assumes it to be feasible.
Note that if one advises others to purchase a thing X, the former assumes that the latter have enough money to purchase it.
Both I and II are implicit. Why did the city traffic police need to issue such a notice? It must have assumed II. Again the word 'always' used in the notice makes I implicit.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.