Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement asserts a general principle: defeats can be instructive. In critical reasoning, we identify which hidden premise(s) must hold true for this claim to make sense as advice or observation about improvement.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
To be “implicit,” an assumption must be necessary for the statement’s logic. The claim focuses on the possibility and value of extracting lessons from failure, not on how people currently treat defeat.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: “Some people do not take their defeats seriously.” The main statement does not require any claim about people’s present attitudes. Even if everyone already takes defeats seriously—or if no one does—the truth that defeats can teach lessons remains. Hence I is not required.Assess II: “People who learn from their defeats may become successful in the future.” The prescriptive force of the statement (that defeats are worth learning from) assumes that such learning can improve future performance or outcomes. If learning could not help, defeats would not be valuable as lessons. Thus II is necessary.
Verification / Alternative check:
If lessons from defeats never improved future results, the claim would be empty. Conversely, the statement remains coherent regardless of whether “some people” take defeats seriously, so I is not required.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” and “either” unnecessarily include I. “Neither” denies II, undermining the statement’s point. “Only I” misses the core improvement premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing descriptive claims about current behavior (I) with the normative/causal claim about learning leading to improvement (II).
Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments