Introduction / Context:
This problem examines what the speaker must believe for the statement “the patient's condition would improve after operation” to be meaningful. In assumption questions, we look for premises that are necessary—not just helpful or plausible—behind the claim.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Claim: Post-operative improvement is expected.
- Assumption I: Surgery is feasible in the current condition.
- Assumption II: Surgery is not feasible in the current condition.
Concept / Approach:
A statement predicting improvement “after operation” presupposes that the operation can indeed be performed (feasibility). Any assumption that directly contradicts feasibility would undermine the statement and therefore cannot be implicit in support of it.
Step-by-Step Solution:
If assumption I were false (patient cannot be operated upon now), then the statement about post-operative improvement would be meaningless or deceptive. Hence I must be true to make sense of the claim.Assumption II explicitly denies the feasibility of surgery. That contradicts the statement’s premise and thus cannot be an implicit assumption supporting it.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negation test for I: “The patient cannot be operated upon” makes the original claim void → I is necessary.Negation test for II: “The patient can be operated upon” still supports the claim; thus II is not necessary and indeed conflicts with the claim.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II (option b) is contradictory to the premise.Either I or II (option c) is impossible because I and II are mutually exclusive.Neither (option d) ignores that feasibility is required.Both (option e) cannot hold since II negates I.
Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking feasibility assumptions whenever a statement speaks about the outcome of a proposed action.
Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit
Discussion & Comments