Assumption I is implicit as the govt's moves are generally aimed at protecting the interests of the masses. But II is not implicit because of "any other way". There might be other means of gambling which the govt does not consider significantly detrimental for the people.
Assumption I is ruled out because of the world only. But II is implicit because without considering this factor relocation won't make sense.
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.
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 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.
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.
I is implicit from the need of different types of letter on different occasion II is implicit from "official" and "semi - official".
I is implicit because only then the person checking can check the availability, But II is not implicit. Personal details are generally required at the time of booking tickets.
I is not an assumption because there may be server reasons for the preference being stated. II is implicit because you ask someone to employ a means only when you assume that the means is available.
I is implicit in the need for training. But II takes things to an extreme with the phrase "no skill sets".
It is not implicit that legal mining does not harm and illegal mining does all harm. It harmful for the environment. This happens because norms are flouted with impunity in illegal mining.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.