Introduction / Context:
The PTA issues a conditional threat: nonattendance unless fees are reduced immediately. For such a pressure tactic to be meaningful, certain premises must hold: the threat must be enforceable (collective parent action) and there must be a reasonable belief that the school could yield to the pressure. We test both assumptions accordingly.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement: Conditional boycott tied to an immediate fee reduction demand.
- Assumption I: A significant number of parents will comply with the PTA call, creating real leverage.
- Assumption II: The school authority may respond by reducing fees if faced with the boycott.
Concept / Approach:
- Threat effectiveness relies on (a) capacity to impose a cost (collective action) and (b) a plausible concession from the target.
- If either element is missing, the statement becomes hollow or irrational.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: If only a tiny fraction would act, the threat lacks substance. The PTA must assume wide support; hence I is implicit.Assumption II: If the school is certain never to concede, the ultimatum would be futile. The PTA's move presumes a chance of success; hence II is implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Remove I: No leverage → empty threat.Remove II: No plausible outcome → self-defeating strategy. Therefore both are required premises of the tactic.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or only II — each alone leaves the threat either toothless or purposeless.Either / Neither — inconsistent with rational collective bargaining logic embedded in the statement.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that a threat needs only participation or only compliance; in practice, both leverage and a plausible concession are presumed.
Final Answer:
Both I and II are implicit
Discussion & Comments