Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only Assumption II is implicit
Explanation:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Discussion & Comments