Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only Assumption I is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Statement–Assumption questions test whether a given statement logically presupposes certain facts to make sense. Here, the statement links the failure to meet a fiscal-deficit target directly to a “major shortfall in revenue collection,” which invites us to examine what must be true for that linkage to be meaningful.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Fiscal deficit = Total Expenditure − Total Revenue. Holding expenditure approximately fixed in the budget period, a fall in revenue pushes the deficit upward. The statement blames the miss on revenue shortfall, which only makes sense if a shortfall tends to raise the deficit, not reduce it.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The statement presents a cause (shortfall) explaining an effect (target miss on deficit).2) For this causal explanation to be coherent, shortfall must push the deficit above the target (i.e., worsen it).3) Therefore, I must be presupposed by the speaker.4) II contradicts the causal direction and cannot be presupposed.Verification / Alternative check:If revenue rises (opposite of shortfall), deficit typically shrinks, ceteris paribus. Hence, a shortfall would have the opposite effect—an increase—supporting Assumption I only.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II implicit: wrong because the statement’s causal link needs deficit to increase, not decrease.Either I or II: wrong because I and II are mutually contradictory.Neither: wrong because without I the stated cause would not explain the effect.Both: impossible due to contradiction.Common Pitfalls:Do not import external information about spending changes; evaluate the minimal presupposition to make the speaker’s causal claim meaningful.
Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.
Discussion & Comments