Both are imminent positive outcomes assumed.
it is not necessary that price rise he these on the mind of the govt while taking the decision. Hence I nor II is implicit. In fact, the truth is that our petroleum companies are running losses even after the drop international prices.
When one applies for leave, one assumes that it would be granted. Hence I is not implicit. But Assumption II is implicit because only then the period of "two years" assumes meaning.
when you instruct someone to do something, you assume that he may do it. Hence II is implicit and II is not.
Assumption I is implicit as this is the purpose assumed while levying the tax. II is also implicit because when a rule is framed, it is assumed that people are capable of following it.
Assumption I is implicit in "at their own cost". Assumption II is contrary to what the citizens may have assumed.
I is implicit because teachers can't be appointed in a vacuum II is more of a presumption.
When a move a made, it is assumed to be effective Hence I is implicit. It is also assumed that the stipulated target will be met. Hence II is implicit.
Assumption I is implicit because it is this that us import sugar in spite of increase in the number of sugar factories.
But II is not implicit because "future" is beyond the scope of the statement.
Compensation is a way of sympathising with the victims, not a different to terrorism. Hence II is implicit but I is not.
Assumption I is implicit because only then the switching over makes sense. But II need not be an assumption. The switching over may have been prompted by economic factors or those of convenience.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.