I is implicit because of the cause-effect relationship. II is also implicit because a thing cannot happen unless it is possible.
I is implicit: the proposal that drivers employed should not be illiterate has to be based on this assumption. II is not implicit. In fact, the assumption is just the contrary. The use of "at least for children" assumes that children are or should be privileged ones.
I is implicit: an atheist would not invoke god for blessings. II is not an assumption but a re-statement: "passed away in the Yamuna waters" itself means "died by drowning in the Yamuna."
Both I and II are implications, not assumptions. I and II are not that on which the statement is based but something that is implied by the statement.
Consider this statement: "I heard a shocking news and felt shattered." Then the assumption is: "Shocking news shatters a person."
I is not implicit because of its last portion, ie "all over the world". II is implicit since betting is on in full swing.
Only I is implicit. That is why Mr X advocates for the need for a consensus to trim government expenditure.
I is not an assumption. It is an inference being drawn out of the "strange thing". But assumption II is implicit. It is this departure from the usual that makes "last night" strange.
Why does the person gives an advice to provide vocational training to women in work ? There must be a positive and constructive role of the training. Hence I is implicit. II is also implicit. Otherwise the training will be useless.
The view of the speaker is in the form of a critic. He feels against the discrimination in punishment given to the swindlers and petty thieves. Hence, he must be assuming I and II also.
The purpose to get help from the instruction to ensure security can't be fulfilled unless the instruction is read by the passengers. Hence, both I and II are implicit.
if only assumption II is implicit.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.