I goes into details. Hence, I is not implicit. But II is implicit; that is why the opposition leader issues such a statement.
Only I is implicit. II is not implicit because of the word 'radical'.
Both I and II are implicit. Why is the rate of the cup of tea reduced to Rs 2 for labourers? I must have been assumed. Again, the real motto of an ad is to increase the number of customers as well as sales. Hence, II must also be assumed.
The instruction to customers is aimed at ensuring safety and restricting unauthorised person's accessibility to any individual's account. Hence, the speaker must be assuming that an unauthorised person can access others' account.
Only I
Suggestion or direction to young officers by the officer is aimed at making the new recruits aware of their responsibilities. Assumptions I can't be correlated with the above statement. II is an assumption: this is what leads to adverse comments. III is not implicit : chances are the judgment is inaccurate; hence the extra caution.
I is irrelevant. Hence I is not implicit. But II is implicit; that is why the speaker suggests the stringent punishment.
Here II is irrelevant. Hence, II is not Implicit. But I must have been assumed by the politician; otherwise how can the status of industrial progress be related with unemployment?
I is implicit because this is the motive behind increasing the fine. II is not implicit because of the second part of the statement.
The advertisement is based on the following assumptions:
* Learners want to solve more and more question in less time.
* Learners want to solve DI without written steps.
* It is possible to solve Quantitative Aptitude in 3 seconds.
* Penalty in case of failure of claime will make a positive impact on readers of the ad; etc.
Hence, I is not implicit. II is obvious. That is why the advertisement goes like this.
We have nothing substantial to correlate the given assumptions. Neither I nor II is implicit.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.