Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement explains why organisations “routinely” communicate health information: to create public awareness about threats and lifestyle diseases. We must determine which embedded premise is required.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Because the purpose cited is “to create awareness,” the minimum necessary assumption is that such ads can indeed create awareness. Whether those ads directly minimise health problems is a stronger claim that may or may not be required for the routine act of advertising.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II: If ads could not create awareness at all, the stated reason for issuing them would fail. Therefore II is implicit.Assumption I: Reducing health problems is typically a longer causal chain (awareness → knowledge → behaviour change → outcomes). The statement does not assert immediate minimisation; it justifies ads on the awareness goal. Hence I, though desirable, is not necessary.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negating II destroys the rationale (“to create awareness”) for routine advertising. Negating I leaves the statement coherent (ads may inform without instantly reducing incidence).
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: over-strong; Either/Neither: miss the explicit awareness rationale embedded in the statement.
Common Pitfalls:
Conflating proximal outcomes (awareness) with distal outcomes (disease reduction); assuming direct behaviour change is guaranteed.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments