Statement: Many people fell ill after eating the meal served at a wedding reception and were rushed to nearby Government and private hospitals for treatment. Assumptions: I. Relatives of the affected people may refuse to take them to Government.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement reports an emergency response: victims were rushed to nearby Government and private hospitals. “Statement and assumption” items ask which belief must be true for the reported or chosen action to be sensible. Here the focus is on hospital choice and capacity in a sudden mass-illness situation (likely food poisoning). Given Data / Assumptions: Event: Many people fell ill after a reception meal. Action: They were rushed to nearby Government and private hospitals. Assumption I: Relatives may refuse Government hospitals. Assumption II: Nearby hospitals may be able to attend to all the affected people. Concept / Approach:For “rushing” patients to nearby hospitals to be a rational immediate step, the decision makers must believe those hospitals can at least accommodate and triage the influx. The belief that relatives may refuse Government hospitals is extraneous to the core action; the statement already includes both Government and private facilities, covering preferences either way. Whether someone might refuse one type is not necessary to justify rushing patients to available providers. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The critical success factor in emergencies is capacity and proximity—hence assuming adequate capability (Assumption II) is natural.2) The action includes both Government and private hospitals, so the possibility of refusal of Government care (I) does not underlie the decision; it is neither required nor suggested.3) Therefore only Assumption II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check:If hospitals were believed unable to attend to patients, rushing everyone there would be pointless. Conversely, even if some relatives had preferences, the dual-path (Government/private) approach already addresses it without being a necessary assumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Assumption I: Not needed; choice of both hospital types moots the concern.• Either/Neither/Both: These misrepresent the necessity; only II is required to validate the action. Common Pitfalls:Reading motivations into the statement (e.g., distrust of Government hospitals). The stem is logistical, not attitudinal. Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

More Questions from Statement and Assumption

Discussion & Comments