Introduction / Context:
This prompt is a typical “what is assumed” problem about an instruction. The directive recommends fitting nets on windows to block mosquitoes. We must decide whether two extra statements are silently presumed by this instruction. Remember: an assumption must be necessary for the instruction to be sensible, not merely possible or convenient.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Instruction: Use nets on windows.
- Assumption I: Allowing mosquitoes through other openings is desirable.
- Assumption II: No nets are available for doors.
Concept / Approach:
- An instruction targeted at a major entry point (windows) does not imply approval of other entry routes.
- Nor does it assert a non-availability of alternatives (e.g., door nets). It simply focuses on a common or significant source.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: From “apply nets on windows,” it does not follow that letting mosquitoes in via doors or vents is desirable. The instruction is preventive, not permissive. I is not necessary.Assess II: The statement never comments on doors. Recommending window nets in no way presupposes the absence of door nets. II is not necessary.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if door nets exist and even if other entries are also blocked, the instruction remains meaningful. The advice does not depend on I or II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I, Only II, Either, or Both — all incorrect because neither assumption is required for the advice to be useful.
Common Pitfalls:
Over-reading exclusivity into a specific recommendation. Specific advice does not exclude other protective measures.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit
Discussion & Comments