Introduction / Context:
The instruction directs a person to consult “our company's lawyer” for difficulties in a specific case. We must uncover what conditions must hold for this instruction to be effective and meaningful.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Directive: Contact the company’s lawyer for difficulties about this case.
- Assumption I: Every company has its own lawyer.
- Assumption II: This specific company’s lawyer is briefed on this case.
Concept / Approach:
Assumptions are needed to make the instruction workable. The universality claim in I is not needed—we only need that this company has a lawyer. Assumption II is necessary: if the lawyer is not briefed, contacting them would not resolve difficulties in the case, undermining the directive’s purpose.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Check I: The statement refers to “our company's lawyer,” implying this company has one. It does not require that all companies universally have one. Thus I is not implicit.Check II: For “contact the lawyer” to be a useful instruction, the lawyer must be equipped with details about the case. Otherwise the instruction fails. Hence II is implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negate II: “The lawyer is not briefed.” Then contacting them cannot reasonably address the difficulty, contradicting the directive’s intent.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I (option a) overgeneralizes.Either (option c) is too weak; II specifically is required.Neither (option d) ignores the necessity of II.Both (option e) adds an unnecessary universal claim.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading “each company” into a statement that only speaks about one company’s arrangement.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments