Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Withdrawing from a title defense due to inadequate preparation is a risk-management decision. The statement links training shortfall to the strategic choice not to compete. We must find which assumption(s) are necessary to make this reasoning coherent.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
In statement–assumption items, an assumption is implicit if, without it, the decision would lose rationale. The minimal belief here is that competing while underprepared materially increases the risk of failure. Stronger specifics (like which opponents to face) are not required for the withdrawal to make sense.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) The choice not to defend implies organizers believe underpreparedness lowers win probability significantly.2) This aligns with Assumption II: inadequate preparation may lead to failure.3) Assumption I is narrower and prescriptive (must play several matches vs major nations). The statement doesn’t hinge on that specific pathway; many training modalities exist.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even with no friendlies against top nations, a team could still prepare via camps, analysis, or domestic tune-ups. The key is overall preparedness, not that single route.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a recommended method of preparation with the essential assumption (that poor prep risks failure).
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments